DODD (Canon Frederic Sutton), St. Leonards-on-Sea. June 19; Sheffield. DURSTON (Maria Latch), Calcott, formerly of Bristol. June 9; Bridgwater. Sorby and Co., Reed and Reed, DowSE (Mary Elizabeth), Penistone. June 18; Hall, Walker, and Norton, Huddersfield. DYSON (Mary), Huddersfield. June 18; Hall, Walker, and Norton, Huddersfield. DUNSTAN (Elizabeth), Perranwell. Claims within two months to J. M. Bennetts, Truro. Dated April 9. EDWARDS (Mary Ellen Oxman), Exeter. June 12; W. H. Stone and Co., Exeter. EARLE (Edward John Vavasour), Denmark-hill and Staple-inn. June 14; Evans, Jarvis, and Sherry, 2, Staple-inn, W.C. 1. ELKINGTON (Herbert Stanley), Hove. June 10; Colbourne, Bush, and Bartlett, FARROW (Arthur Lincoln), Oldham. June 12; S. Holroyd, Oldham. FITTON (Thomas), Stretford and Manchester. June 14; R. and W. Page, Man chester. FLETCHER (John), Chinley. Claims within two months to Allen, Whitfield, and GOUGH (Charles John), Twickenham. Burdon, Richmond, Surrey. GAMMIE (Mary), Chiswick. June 16; N. R. Murray, 386, High-rd, Chiswick, W. GOODRICH (Admiral Sir James Edward Clifford), Stinchcombe Manor. June 21; R. H. Penley, Dursley, Glos. HALLIWELL (William), Bingley. June 15; Hodgson, Pickles, and Hodgson, Dewsbury. HAY-PATTERSON (Amy), Bath. June 10; Stone, King, and Wardle, Bath. HAMBURY (Arthur Davenport Bateman), White's Club, St. James-st. June 10; Johnson, Raymond-Barker and Co., 9 New-sq., Lincoln's-inn, W.C. 2. HEASMAN (Harriett), Kingswood. June 14; Morrison, Nightingale, and Hewitt, Reigate. HUDSON (James), Adisham. June 16; Mowll and Mowll, Canterbury. HINCKLEY (Richard Hodson), Willenhall. June 19; Rowland, Tildesley, and Harris, Willenhall. HINCHCLIFFE (Sarah), Manchester. June 14; Farrar and Co., Manchester. HANBURY (Emily Mary), Hampstead. June 14; Miller and Smiths, 3, Salters' Hall-ct, Cannon-st, E.C. 4. HOOKER (John Ezzard Edward), Sheerness. June 17; V. H. Stallon and Sons, Sheerness. ISAAC (Rhoda Grace), Exeter. June 12; Petherick and Sons, Exeter. JACKMAN (John Gibbons), Canterbury. June 19; Trustee Dept., Lloyds Bank, 39, Threadneedle-st, E.C. 2, or Furley and Page, Canterbury. JERROM (Leonard_Joseph), Sheffield. June 26; Deputy Public Trustee, Manchester. W. I. Mitchell, Manchester, sol. JENNINGS (Mary Ann), Blackpool. June 30; S. S. Waterhouse, Blackpool. JOHNSON (John Graver), Philadelphia, U.S.Á. June 14; Dowsons and Sankey, 7, St. James's-pl, S.W. 1. MARRS (James), Hale. June 12; Risque and Robson, Manchester. MITCHELL (Adalia Winfred), Bushey. June 18; Woodcock, Ryland, and Parker, NURSE (Isaiah), Woolston, formerly Southampton. June 12; Blake, Lapthorn, and Roberts, Portsmouth. OLIVER (Matthew William Ballie), Kensington and Harley-st. June 21; Capel, Cure, and Ball, 2, Southampton-st, Bloomsbury-sq, W.C. 1. PARKER (John), Southport and Manchester. June 12; Risque and Robson, Manchester. PHILLIPS (Elizabeth Jane), Enfield. June 10; Trustee Dept., Barclays Bank, 54, Lombard-street, E.C. 3, or J. Warburton, sol. PHILLIP (John), Skipton. June 9; Richard Wilson and Son, Skipton. PORTER (Sarah), Bournemouth. June 15; Kempson and Wright, Farnham, Surrey. RADCLIFFE (Alice Ann), Huddersfield. June 18; Hall, Walker, and Norton, Huddersfield. SEWART (James), Liverpool. June 20; F. Lindsay Elsworth and McArthur, Liverpool. SMITH (Alfred), Lambeth. June 14; Miller and Smiths, 3, Salters' Hall-ct, Cannon-st, E.C. 4. SCANLON (Leonard Edmund), Manchester. June 12; Risque and Robson, Manchester. SHAW (Rev. Thomas Henry), Everton-cum-Tetworth. June 9; Conquest, Clare, and Binns, Bedford. SUNDT (Leif), Putney and Eastcheap. June 9; Constant and Constant, Exchangechambrs, 24, St. Mary Axe, E.C. 3. THEED (Lucy Monica Caroline), Exmouth and Sidmouth. June 14; Parson, Lee, and Co., 24, Lime-st, E.C. 3. THOMAS (Dillon Hanbury), Sherborne. June 10; Clarke, Rawlins, and Co., 380, Gresham House, E.C. 2. WATTS (Edwin Burlton), Tanganyika Territory, formerly Cranbrook, Kent. WASHBOURNE (Albert), Four Oaks. June 30; Huggins and Co., Birmingham. WISE (Frederick) Fulham, June 15'; Clark, Son, and Carnt, 718, Fulham-rd., S.W.6. WITHERS (Emmanuel), Birmingham. June 15; E. S. Taylor and Son, Birmingham. WILD (John Samuel), Oldham. June 19; Rowntree and Ritson, Oldham. YEARSLEY (Thomas Robert), Muswell Hill. June 14; Culross and Co., 13, Old Cavendish-st, S.W. 1. BANKRUPTS THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, 1914. RECEIVING ORDERS. GAZETTE, APRIL 9. ARMSTRONG, GEORGE, late Yelling, farmer. Ct. Peterborough, April 7. BOOTH, SAMUEL, Armsdale. Ct. Liverpool. April 7. CORNFORTH, WILLIAM HENRY, Darlington, fish dealer. Ct. Stockton-on-Tees. CROOKES, ELIZABETH JOYCE, Lincoln, grocer. Ct. Lincoln and Horncastle. April 7. Ct. High HOOPER, ARTHUR PERCY, and HOOPER, HAROLD HARMSWORTH (trading as Hooper IRVING, CALVERT, Caldbeck, farmer. Ct. Carlisle. April 7. LEES, JOSEPH, late Bolton, painter. Ct. Bolton. April 7. LOVE, WILLIAM ALFRED, late Torquay; and BOYER, HERBERT WILLIAM, late Newton Abbot (trading as Love and Boyer), builders. Ct. Plymouth. April 7. MELLOR, G., New Oxford-st, employee in the service of a limited liability company. MENDEL, SAMUEL, Liverpool, master tailor. Ct. Liverpool. April 7. READ AND BURR, late Hammersmith-terr, wireless manufacturers' agents. Ct. SILVERMAN, HARRY, Manchester, smallware dealer. Ct. Manchester. April 7. WEBB, CHARLES WHITWORTH (trading as G. A. Webb and Son), Bristol, musical GAZETTE, APRIL 13. BARRON, WALTER MARTIN, Barnsley, confectioner. Ct. Barnsley. April 8. BARNES, ALBERT, Grangetown, coal dealer. Ct. Middlesbrough. April 8. COOKE, WILLIAM JOHN, Dalton-in-Furness, publican. Ct. Barrow-in-Furness and EVANS, JOHN, Pengam, general dealer. Ct. Tredegar, Abertillery, and Bargoed. FALSHAW, WILLIAM, Wakefield, landscape gardener. Ct. Wakefield. April 8. HEYWOOD, GEORGE, Harrogate, confectioner. Ct. Harrogate. April 7. JINKS, CHARLES, Birmingham, traveller. Ct. Birmingham. April 9. MOORE, WILLIAM JOHN, Ventnor, builder. Ct. Newport and Ryde. April 10. NICHOLS, CHARLES JAMES (trading as C. J. Nichols and Co.), Bridgend, electrical engineer. Ct. Bridgend. April 8. NORTH, ALFRED, and NORTH, FRED (trading as A. and F. North), Dewsbury, PALMER, WILLIAM, Cheltenham, innkeeper. Ct. Cheltenham. April 9. RAVEN, SYDNEY WINDSOR, late Turle-mansions, Tollington Park, traveller. ROBSON, ROBERT, Stamfordham, motor engineer. Ct. Newcastle-upon-Tyne. April 8. STANSFELD-PICKFORD, JACK, Weymouth, laundry manager. Ct. Dorchester. CATLOW, THOMAS, Blackpool (late cotton manufacturer). Ct. Blackpool. April 1 CROOKES, ELIZABETH JOYCE, Woodhall Spa, grocer. Ct. Lincoln and Horncastle April 7. CORNFORTH, WILLIAM HENRY, Darlington, fish dealer. Ct. Stockton-on-Tees. April 7. DREXEL, ERIK GEORGE (described in Rec. Order as E. G. Drexel), late Royal Automobile Club. Ct. High Court. April 7. DOVE, ERNEST WALTER, Kingston Hill, estate agent. Ct. Kingston (Surrey). April 7. DOBSON, GEORGE WILLIAM, late Castleton, farmer. Ct. Stockton-on-Tees. April 7. GRIFFITHS, WILLIAM GEORGE, Swansea, coal miner. Ct. Swansea. April 7. HOOPER, ARTHUR PERCY, and HOOPER, HAROLD HARMSWORTH (trading as Hooper LOVE, ALFRED WILLIAM, late Brixham, and BOYER, HERBERT WILLIAM, late MCINTOSH, FRANK GRAHAM, Royal Air Force Club. Ct. High Court. March 31. NOTTINGHAM, FRANCIS WEBSTER (described in Rec. Order as F. W. Nottingham) (trading as Rex Gramophone Company), Chiswell-st, Finsbury, gramophone dealer. Ct. High Court. April 7. OGLEBY, ALISTAIR WILLIAM, Llanelly, tinplate worker. Ct. Carmarthen. April 7. OLDHAM, THOMAS, Darlington, iron merchant. Ct. Stockton-on-Tees. April 7. PENNEFATHER, JOHN FRANCIS, Willsdon-mansions, Long Acre. Ct. High Court. April 1. PIMLOTT, FREDERICK, Bures Hamlet, farmer. Ct. Colchester. March 18. ROSS, JACOB SMITH, Golders Green, engineer. Ct. High Court. April 1. April 1. WEBB, CHARLES WHITWORTH (trading as G. A. Webb and Son), Bristol, musical instrument maker. Ct. Bristol. March 30. WILLIS, JOSEPH, Northallerton, engine driver. Ct. Northallerton. April 6. YOUNG, KATE, Northfleet, grocer. Ct. Rochester. April 7. Amended notices substituted for those in Gazette, March 30. GRUNDON, HERBERT RIDSDALE, Penwortham, taxi proprietor. Ct. Preston. Amended notice substituted for that in Gazette, April 2. LAMB, CHARLES OSBORN BURGOYNE (described in Rec. Order as C. O. B. Lamb), Newark. Ct. Nottingham. March 29. GAZETTE, APRIL 13. ALLEN, HARRY, Dudley, metal works manager. Ct. Dudley. April 8. BARROW, WALTER MARTIN, Barnsley, confectioner. Ct. Barnsley. April 8. BELL, JAMES HERBERT, Great Driffield, dance hall proprietor. Ct. Kingstonupon-Hull. April 9. BOOTH, SAMUEL, Ainsdale, produce dealer. Ct. Liverpool. April 8. BARNES, ALBERT, Grangetown, coal dealer. Ct. Middlesbrough. April 8. COOK, EMILY, Bristol, general storekeeper. Ct. Bristol. April 8. COCKELL, ELLIOTT MCRAE (described in Rec. Order as Elliott MacRae Cockell), late Queen's-grdns, Bayswater. Ct. High Court. April 8. DONN, JONAS, late The Broadway, Cricklewood, gentleman. Ct. High Court. April 9. EVANS, JOHN, Pengam, general dealer. Ct. Tredegar, Abertillery and Bargoed. EVESON, CHARLES ERNEST, New Broughton, coke worker. Ct. Wrexham. April 7. KELLY, MORRIS, Manchester, radio apparatus dealer. Ct. Manchester. April 8. LEWIS, JOHN, Northfield-av, West Ealing, provision dealer. Ct. Brentford. LUND, WILLIAM CHARLES, Eckington, plumber. Ct. Chesterfield. April 10. MCLAREN, ELIZABETH (trading as Larene et Cie), Harrogate. Ct. Harrogate. April 10. METCALFE, HAROLD, Nafferton, poultry keeper. Ct. Kingston-upon-Hull. April 9. NICHOLS, CHARLES JAMES (trading as C. J. Nichols and Co.), Bridgend, electrical engineer. Ct. Bridgend. April 8. NORTH, ALFRED, and NORTH, FRED (trading as A. and F. North), Dewsbury, wireless engineers. Ct. Dewsbury. April 9. NORTON, JOSEPH CATLOW, late Chapel-en-le-Frith, licensed victualler. Ct. Stockport. April 8. PYNT, SAMUEL, Bradford, tailor. Ct. Bradford. April 8. ROBSON, ROBERT, Stamfordham, motor engineer. Ct. Newcastle-upon-Tyne. SHIELDS, FRANK, Bridlington, gunsmith. Ct. Scarborough. April 7. TASKER, ALBERT, Liverpool, upholsterer. Ct. Liverpool. April 10. Ct. High TOMSEN, FREDERICK NELSON (trading as C. G. Lewington) (described in Rec. Amended notice substituted for that in Gazette, March 16. ORDERS ANNULLING, REVOKING, OR RESCINDING ORDERS. DAVIS, SOLOMON (described in Rec. Order as S. Davis), Victoria Park-rd, Hackney. Cheques, Money Orders, and Postal Orders must be made payable to THE FIELD PRESS, LTD. and crossed "Westminster Bank, Ltd.' Bank Notes and Currency Notes must be sent by Registered Post. Postage stamps current in the United Kingdom will be accepted in payment of small amounts. The Statutes and Index and the Indices to LAW TIMES and LAW TIMES REPORTS will not be sold to others than Subscribers to LAW TIMES and LAW TIMES REPORTS except at an additional charge. Portfolios for preserving the current numbers of the LAW TIMES, price 6s. 6d. net. LAW TIMES REPORTS, price 6s. net. Parcels of Volumes for binding should be sent carriage paid to the Publisher, LAW TIMES Office, Windsor House, Bream's-buildings, E.C. 4. The reduced charge for binding in half calf is as follows:-LAW TIMES JOURNAL, 12s. per volume; LAW TIMES REPORTS, 11s. per volume. Advertisers who desire to have replies sent to this Office under a Box Number or Initials should remit 1s. additional to cover cost of registration and postage to them of such replies. Advertisements must reach the office not later than 12 o'clock noon on Thursday, and must be accompanied by a remittance. Advertisements may be refused or discontinued at any time by the Proprietors without assigning any reason. They are only accepted or contracted for on this condition. TO CORRESPONDENTS All communications intended for the Editorial Department should, in order to prevent delay, be addressed to the EDITOR OF THE LAW TIMES.'" All communications must be authenticated by the name and address of the writer, not necessarily for publication, but as a guarantee of good faith. Anonymous communications are invariably rejected. Any contributions that may be sent on approval will be carefully considered by the Editor; but no responsibility whatever can be accepted in respect thereof, although, if unsuitable, every effort will be made to return them, provided that a stamped addressed wrapper is enclosed for that purpose. The copyright of all contributions (including reports paid for) shall belong to the proprietors of the LAW TIMES, together with the right of republication in any form they may think desirable. Apart from any express agreement that may be made, contributions are only received and considered on these conditions. THE SHEAF BROOK.-Practice-High Court action not within the jurisdiction of the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS: NOTES AND QUERIES CORRESPONDENCE 350 352 534 KIMBER COAL Co. v. STONE AND ROLFE LIM.- . 342 OBITUARY.-Sir John Francis Rotton, K.C.-Mr. George William Bailey Mr. James McMullen Rigg-Sir Robert John Price-Mr. Philip Wellesley Colley-Mr. Henry Joseph Toulmin-Mr. Thomas Horwood-Mr. Thomas Arthur Dyson-Mr. Frederick James Maw, LL.B.-Mr. George Ernest Rigden-Mr. Isaac Arthur Huskisson Everett-Mr. John Edward Latton Pickering-Mr. John Attenborough COURT PAPERS.-Rota of Registrars-Sittings of the County Courts for May and June GAZETTES Notices to Subscribers, Advertisers, and Correspondents, page 358. 352 THE LAW AND THE LAWYERS article dealing with the work of the conference on the Lord Reading UNIVERSAL Satisfaction will be felt throughout the whole Profession that His Majesty has conferred the dignity of a marquessate upon Lord Reading on the completion of his term of office as Viceroy and Governor-General of India. At the Bar, as Law Officer, as Lord Chief Justice, as Ambassador to America, and as Viceroy, Lord Reading has proved himself a striking personality of great ability, and it is sincerely to be hoped that in the near future his judicial capacity will be available to strengthen the final tribunals of the Empire. Taxation of Betting WITHIN a short period it will be known whether the Government intends to impose a tax on betting. As we have already pointed out, the only serious question for consideration is whether the imposition of such a tax is practicable, that is to say, could it be collected efficiently and would the result be sufficiently important? If, however, it is decided to tax what at present may be described as "legal betting, namely, that effected on credit or on race courses, it will be impossible to ignore the question of the recognition of the legality of betting in general. No doubt a great deal will be heard about the moral aspect of the matter, but unless betting of all descriptions can be totally suppressed, legalisation and control, with appropriate taxation, seems to be the only possible alternative. Maritime Law To The Times of the 16th inst. Sir Leslie Scott, K.C., the senior delegate to the Brussels Conference held during the Easter Vacation, contributes a special unification of maritime law. Four different conventions were under consideration: (1) The immunity of State-owned ships and cargo; (2) limitation of shipowners' liability; (3) maritime mortgages and liens; and (4) carriage of goods by sea, and progress was made in respect of all these matters. Sir Leslie points out that the plan of the Comité Maritime International rests upon international agreement in the first place, and national legislation in the second. It must, however, be admitted that the wheels of international agreement must of necessity revolve slowly, and in the case of convention (4), which was finally agreed in 1923 by eleven States and now ratified by them-further signatures being given and promised-it would be interesting to know how many, in addition to Great Britain, have passed the necessary domestic legislation. Agreement was apparently reached concerning convention (1), art. I. of which provides : Seagoing vessels owned or operated by States, cargoes owned by them, and cargoes and passengers carried on such vessels, and the States owning or operating such vessels or owning such cargoes, are subject in respect of claims relating to the operation of such vessels or cargoes to the same rules of liability and to the same obligations as those applicable to privately owned vessels and cargoes and to the private ownership of vessels. And in the case of ships of war and non-commercial vessels it was also agreed that the States would accept liability for collision, salvage, &c., but there should be no right of arrest and proceedings were only to be brought in the courts of the State of the ship. Subject to the right to abrogate the whole convention in time of war, "all the seventeen nations who were present signed the convention, or intimated that they expected to do so shortly." And it may be that "the convention thus made will satisfy the commercial classes of this country, whilst safeguarding public interests, both in peace and war." Limitation, Mortgages, and Lien BOTH the conventions (2) and (3) were settled in 1923, and since then thirteen since then thirteen States have signed that concerning the limitation of shipowners' liability, and eight that relating to maritime mortgages and liens. Great Britain was not a signatory to the latter, and at the present conference discussion was re-opened" in order to consider the amendments which commercial opinion in Great Britain regarded as essential if we were to sign." These were accepted with one small modification, and "the British delegates signed ad referendum on behalf of the United Kingdom and not on behalf of the selfgoverning Dominions." How far Germany and the Scandinavian States have been satisfied on both these matters does not appear at present, but apart from agreement at the Conference, binding signatures on all the matters discussed are wanting in the case of several important States. Without in any way seeking to decry the valuable work done by these conferences, a good deal remains to be be done before their agreements become practically effective. Great Britain has given a lead in the case of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, and one can only express the hope that on all these conventions agreement will be followed by ratification and legislation in the principal countries of the world. Particulars of Justification THE decision of the Court of Appeal in Godman v. Times Publishing Company (post, p. 343) makes it clear that the relevancy of particulars of justification delivered in an action for libel is a matter for consideration at the trial, and not for summary proceedings in chambers to strike out those to which objection might be taken. And this is manifestly the most convenient course, for until the issues are fully defined it is impossible to tell what may or may not be relevant, and a defendant who has not included matters that may be relevant in his particulars would find himself at great disadvantage. Ireland and Double Taxation SUBJECT to confirmation by Parliament and the Oireachtas of the Irish Free State, an agreement has been reached giving reciprocal exemption and relief from double income tax and super-tax. Exemption is for those who are not resident in both countries, and relief is for those who are so resident, the latter to be allowed in accordance with and under the provisions of sect. 27 of the Finance Act 1920, which deals with relief in respect of Dominion income tax, the rate to be allowed being one-half of the appropriate rate of British or Free State income tax whichever happens to be the lower. A company is to be deemed to be resident in that country only in which its business is managed and controlled. It must be borne in mind that the agreement and any subsequent legislation is only to avoid the payment of double income tax, and property exempt in the non-resident country would be taxable in the other. For clause 3 provides : 3. (a) Any person who is entitled to exemption from British income tax by virtue of article 1 (a) of this agreement in respect of property situate and profits or gains arising in Great Britain or Northern Ireland shall if and so far as the Orieachtas of the Irish Free State so provides, and subject to any exemption or relief to which he may be entitled under the laws in force in the Irish Free State, be chargeable to Irish Free State income-tax in respect of such property profits or gains. (b) Any person who is entitled to exemption from Irish Free State income tax by virtue of article 1 (b) of this agreement in respect of property situate and profits or gains arising in the Irish Free State shall, if and so far as the British Parliament so provides, and subject to any exemption or relief to which he may be entitled under the laws in force in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, be chargeable to British income tax in respect of such property profits or gains. (c) Any person who is entitled to relief by virtue of article 2 of this agreement shall, subject to such relief, be chargeable, if and so far as the British Parliament so provides, to British income tax in respect of property situate and profits or gains arising in the Irish Free State in like manner in all respects as if he were resident in Great Britain or Northern Ireland but not resident in the Irish Free State, and shall, subject to such relief as aforesaid, be chargeable, if and so far as the Oireachtas of the Irish Free State so provides, to Irish Free State income tax in respect of property situate and profits or gains arising in Great Britain or Northern Ireland in like manner in all respects as if he were resident in the Irish Free State but not resident in Great Britain or Northern Ireland. There should be no difficulty in passing the necessary legislation so far as this country is concerned, and bringing the Irish Free State into line with the other Dominions. WHAT IS A PROTECTORATE? A QUESTION involving important constitutional issues of farreaching public interest was decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the recent case of Sobhuza II. v Miller and the Swaziland Corporation Limited (post, p. 343). The facts in that case were briefly as follows: Swaziland, which lies on the east of the Transvaal, was originally under the rule of native kings who granted concessions in respect of land to persons other than natives. In 1889 a former king of the Swazis granted an area of land subject to a concession known as the "Unallotted Lands Concession" in favour of two persons, Thorburn and Watkins, who undertook to respect all prior rights and in no way to interfere with the rights of the native subjects of the grantor. This concession was duly confirmed in 1890 by the High Court of Swaziland which had jurisdiction in such matters. Before the Boer War broke out in 1899, Swaziland was a protectorate of the South African Republic. After the conquest and annexation of that Republic, the Crown, by Order in Council of the 25th June 1903, authorised the Governor of the Transvaal to exercise all powers and jurisdiction of the Crown and to provide by proclamation for peace, order, and good government of Swaziland, including the prohibition and punishment of acts tending to disturb the public peace. In issuing such proclamations, the Governor was to respect native laws which were not incompatible with the due exercise of His Majesty's power and jurisdiction or clearly injurious to the welfare of the natives. By Order in Council of the 1st December 1906, the above powers conferred upon the Governor of the Transvaal were transferred to the High Commissioner for South Africa. By a subsequent Order in Council, dated the 2nd Nov. 1907, His Majesty, by virtue of the powers vested in His Majesty under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act 1890 or otherwise, ordered that all rights in any land in Swaziland which had not been set apart by the High Commissioner for the sole and exclusive occupation of the natives, or lawfully expropriated by the High Commissioner, should vest in and be exercised by the High Commissioner who might make grants or leases of such lands. By a proclamation of the High Commissioner of the 16th March 1917, a portion of the lands included in the "Unallotted Lands Concession" of 1889 was proclaimed as Crown lands; and on the same date the High Commissioner made a Crown grant to the second respondents of part of the land subject to the above concession as compensation for lands which they had relinquished in his favour. The second respondents, for whom the first respondent was acting as manager, then commenced to eject certain natives who had long been in occupation of portions of land included within the concession. The natives claimed that their rights of use and occupation under native law had never been affected, and that the rights to the land which they possessed before and after the granting of the concession remained intact. The High Court of Swaziland held, however, that the Order in Council of the 2nd Nov. 1907 transferred the ownership of the land in dispute to the Crown and thereby extinguished any rights of use and occupation that were in the natives. 66 The dispute in the above case invites us to consider the question, What is a British Protectorate? In the first place it is essential to remember that the inhabitants of a British Protectorate do not owe allegiance to our Sovereign. As Dr. Lushington said in regard to the inhabitants of the Ionian States, then under a British Protectorate, in his judgment in The Ionian Ships (1855, 2 Ecc. & Adm. 212, at p. 226): Allegiance, in the proper sense of the term, undoubtedly they do not owe; because allegiance only exists between the Sovereign and his subjects, properly so called, which they are not." In Rex v. Earl of Crewe (102 L. T. Rep. 760; (1910) 2 K. B. 576) Lord Justice Kennedy explained the idea of a protectorate thus: "What the idea of a protectorate excludes, and the idea of annexation on the other hand would include, is that absolute ownership, which was signified by the word dominium in Roman law, and which, though perhaps not quite satisfactorily, is sometimes described as territorial sovereignty. The protected country remains in regard to the protecting state a foreign country; and this being so, the inhabitants of a protectorate, whether native born or immigrant settlers, do not by virtue of the relationship between the protecting and the protected State become subjects of the protecting State. A limited obedience the dwellers within a protectorate do owe, as a sort of equivalent for protection." Protectorates differ from colonies in two ways, namely: (1) the protected territory is not an integral portion of the territory of the protecting state; and (2) the protected community retains, as of right, all powers of internal sovereignty which have not been expressly surrendered by treaty, or which are not required for the due fulfilment of the external obligations which the protecting state has undertaken in assuming the protectorate: (see Hall's International Law, 8th edit., at p. 150). The protecting state may set up a complete hierarchy of officials; or it may exercise its authority informally by means of residents or consuls. In any event two requirements only need be satisfied, namely (1) a reasonable amount of security must be attained; and (2) justice must be administered as between Europeans, and as between Europeans and natives. The amount of control exercised by various states over the internal administration of their protectorates varies considerably. In this respect the majority of European countries claim a much greater measure of control than Great Britain. This may be illustrated by the case of Germany in the past. Before the Great War, German protectorates were protectorates in name only, and their administration was based on the unrestricted sovereignty of the Emperor as fully as in actual German colonies. Both British and foreign protectorates, however, have the following points in common: (1) Internationally they act as a barrier in favour of the protecting state against interference by other states; (2) the foreign relations of the protected state are controlled exclusively by the protecting state; (3) international law is not concerned with the relations between the protecting and the protected state, but the protecting state is bound to see that a reasonable amount of security is afforded to foreign subjects and property within the protected territory; and (4) the assumption of a protectorate by European powers over barbarous tribes is generally a preliminary step to the exercise of complete internal and external sovereignty on annexation. An example of this in the case of Great Britain is afforded by the annexation of Zululand to Natal. The extent of interference by the Crown in matters of internal administration varies considerably in British protectorates. For example, in Nigeria, Somaliland, and Swaziland full control of the legislative and judiciary is assumed by the Crown. On the other hand, in Zanzibar and Brunei the internal administration is left almost entirely in the hands of the native government. Between these two extremes the amount of control exercised by the Crown in the internal administration of protectorates is of varying degree. In every case, however, the right of the Crown to impose legisation on, or establish jurisdiction over, protectorates has 66 been consolidated and put on a statutory basis by the Foreign Jurisdiction Act 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 37), which enacts that "Whereas by treaty, grant, capitulation, usage, sufferance, and other lawful means, Her Majesty the Queen has jurisdiction within divers foreign countries. . . Sect. (1) It is and shall be lawful for Her Majesty the Queen to hold, exercise, and enjoy any jurisdiction which Her Majesty now has or may at any time hereafter have within a foreign country in the same and as ample a manner as if Her Majesty had acquired that jurisdiction by the cession or conquest of territory." By sect. 16, a foreign country " is defined to mean 66 any country or place out of Her Majesty's dominions." As to exercising jurisdiction over British subjects in countries which possess no regular government, sect. 2 provides that "Where a foreign country is not subject to any government from whom Her Majesty the Queen might obtain jurisdiction in the manner recited by this act, Her Majesty shall by virtue of this act have jurisdiction over Her Majesty's subjects for the time being resident in or resorting to that country, and that jurisdiction shall be jurisdiction of Her Majesty in a foreign country within the meaning of the other provisions of this Act." As to the validity of acts done in pursuance of jurisdiction, sect. 3 enacts that "Every act and thing done in pursuance of any jurisdiction of Her Majesty in a foreign country shall be as valid as if it had been done according to the local law then in force in that country." And finally, sect. 11 provides that " Every Order in Council made in pursuance of this Act shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament forthwith and shall have effect as if it were enacted in this Act." The above statute has been the subject of deep consideration in some important and recent cases. In Rex v. Earl of Crewe (102 L. T. Rep 760; (1910) 2 K. B. 576) an Order in Council, dated the 9th May 1891, made in exercise of the powers conferred by the Foreign Jurisdiction Act 1890, authorised the High Commissioner for South Africa to exercise in the Bechuanaland Protectorate the powers of Her Majesty, and to provide by proclamation for the administration of justice and the maintenance of peace, order, and good government of all persons within the protectorate, including the prohibition and punishment of all acts tending to disturb the public peace. In pursuance of the powers conferred upon him by the above Order in Council, the High Commissioner issued a proclamation, dated the 5th Dec. 1906, authorising the detention of a native chief called Sekgome on the ground that his detention was necessary for the preservation of peace within the protectorate. Sekgome was accordingly detained in custody within the protectorate. On an application by the prisoner for a writ of habeas corpus to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, it was held by the Court of Appeal (affirming the order of the Divisional Court dismissing the application) that the Bechuanaland Protectorate was a foreign country in which His Majesty had jurisdiction within the meaning of the Foreign Jurisdiction Act 1890; that the High Commissioner's proclamation of the 5th Dec. 1906 was validly made under the powers conferred on him by the Order in Council of the 9th May 1891, and that, therefore, the detention of Sekgome was lawful. In the course of their long and exhaustive judgments in the above case, the Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Vaughan Williams, Farwell, and Kennedy) expressed the view that the Foreign Jurisdiction Act 1890 was concerned with definitions and secondary principles rather than with new principles. Incidentally, Lords Justices Vaughan-Williams and Kennedy did not consider that the Secretary of State for the Colonies was the person to whom the writ of habeas corpus could be directed, on the ground that the Secretary of State could not be regarded as a person having the custody of the prisoner. In Re Southern Rhodesia (119 L. T. Rep. 698; (1919) A. C. 211) the British South Africa Company, which was incorporated by Royal Charter in 1889, was a commercial enterprise, but it was also authorised to pursue the following objects: "To undertake and carry on the government or administration of any territories, districts, or places in Africa, and generally to exercise all rights and powers granted by or exercisable under the charter and particularly to improve, develop, and cultivate any lands included within the territories of the company, to settle any such territories and lands, and to aid and promote immigration, to grant lands for terms of years or in perpetuity, and either absolutely or by way of mortgage or otherwise." It was further provided under the charter that 66 |