Scholars of his Alma Mater that International Law is a branch of the general Science of Law.

We welcome Professor Westlake's new volume as a fresh assertion of this truth, on behalf of the University of Cambridge, and a fresh proof that the sister Universities are advancing on similar lines of Legal Thought in the matter of the Law of Nations.

In form, Professor Westlake's new work takes a shape which, under the title of "Chapters," appears to the learned Professor to imply a closer sequence than would, in his opinion, have been connoted by the title, "Essays." We are not ourselves persuaded that it would have made any particular difference to our apprehension of his general mode of treatment if the learned author had adopted a different title from that of "Chapters," but we are glad of his book under any title, though we can scarcely at the present moment do more than skirt the fringe of his subject.

There are necessarily several points at which Professor Westlake touches the themes which were lately discussed by Mr. W. E. Hall, in his interesting volume on the Foreign Jurisdiction of the British Crown, recently noticed in this Review. This was, of course, unavoidable, and it is indeed most desirable that such difficult problems should be as widely as possible discussed among Jurists. What is the nature of Protectorates, in Civilised and Semi-Civilised or Uncivilised respectively? What is the nature and what the foundation of the Jurisdiction exercised in such cases? These and other such questions must force themselves before us in days when Protectorates and Spheres of Influence are daily more and more acting and re-acting upon Civilised and Semi-Civilised or Uncivilised man.

countries

It appears to us, if we rightly apprehend his language, that Prof. Westlake attributes, or is disposed to attribute, too small a share to the natives in the foundation of a title to land occupied by Semi-Civilised or Uncivilised races. It must, of course, be granted that it is often difficult to ascertain precisely what is the conception of the ownership of land by such races, and also the precise depositary, if any, of the power to cede their land and vest a title in the immigrant and all-absorbing Civilised man. But, having necessarily conceded this, we have not thereby conceded what seems to be the practical outcome of Prof. Westlake's views, that the races of less civilisation have

no rights at all in their land. We do not, indeed, see that Prof. Westlake says in so many words that such lands are res nullius, but his doctrine seems to come to something which it is difficult to distinguish from that view.

"The term Protectorates," as Sir Travers Twiss has remarked in our own pages (Law Magazine and Review, No. CCL., for November, 1883, Art. An International Protectorate of the Congo River), "is a term of very varied import," and the more we see of Protectorates in different parts of the world, the more we are persuaded of the truth of this statement. Whether in Corea, Tonquin, Tunis, or Madagascar, Protectorates seem likely to give no small amount of anxiety to the Protecting Power. We shall hope to devote fuller space to the discussion of these and other interesting points in Prof. Westlake's volume in a future issue of this Review.

Education. A Manual of Practical Law. By JAMES WILLIAMS, B.C.L. A. & C. Black. 1892.

A book on Education Law is always a timely addition to Legal literature, and Mr. Williams is even more to the fore at the present moment in the matter of the keen interest excited by his subject than he was at the actual time of the issue of his handy volume.

We are far now from the days when the Licence of the Ordinary was required for the exercise of the Scholastic profession, but we are in presence of demands, often repeated of late years, for a registration of all teachers. Whether such registration would work miracles in the way of keeping out the teacher of small knowledge and less ability, may be doubted, though we presume that such is the idea of its promoters. Mr. Williams naturally begins with the Universities, as the greatest and most ancient Educational centres of our country. It is somewhat of an irony which compels him to say that the earliest Statute of the Realm dealing with these dignified bodies, is that of Hen. V., cap. 8, which forbade the scholars to hunt by night. The repeal of this Statute in 1863 would seem to leave the practice open to scholars of a sporting turn. But there are still Proctors, and the apparent freedom to don "pink" may be more apparent than real.

What constitutes a University is a question involving research into the mediaval history of Europe, and it is a question upon

which volumes have been written. It is pretty clear, however, that in their inception they were schools, often Monastic in origin, which, Topsy-like, "growed" in some place where the elements of a teaching body existed in the persons of clerks or monks who were fit to assume the position of Magistri. After the scholares who resorted to such a seat of learning had become fairly numerous, the Pope or the Emperor, or in England the King, stepped in and took the rising institution under his sacred or august protection, and it blossomed into a University, though the term Universitas in Roman Law, of course, meant something very different. The notion of a University seems to be subjected to considerable distortion at the present day, when a simple course of Lectures by persons who happen to be members of a University, is dignified with the utterly inapplicable title of "University Extension."

In treating of Grammar Schools, we note that Mr. Williams incidentally throws some light on the Floruit of an early master of Tunbridge School, John Stockwood, who described himself as Schola Tunbridgiensis olim ludimagister, in 1597, on the title-page of his Progymnasma Scholasticum. In the Register of Tonbridge School, 1820-93 (London: Bentley. 1893), by Mr. Hughes-Hughes, we find Stockwood placed third in the List of Head Masters as having held office from 1574 to 1586, and it is said of him that he wrote several educational works, which had a great reputation in their day. It would seem from Mr. Williams's citation that he must have resigned and survived his resignation some years.

Grammar Schools would form an interesting subject for a separate treatise in the history of Education in England, but Board Schools absorb the largest share of public interest in these days, more particularly in the London of "Diggleites" and "Anti-Diggleites," and the quiet seats of Education hidden away in remote parts of England, such as Sedbergh or St. Bees, are almost forgotten in the heat of living controversies. The all-embracing network of elementary education under recent Legislation extends to canal boats. We should think that the annual Reports submitted to Parliament on the manner in which the Elementary Education Acts are enforced in this watery department of the subject might afford some curious matter for a future edition of Mr. Williams's book. The question what is a nuisance is one often brought before magistrates, and sometimes even before the Superior Courts. We should think that some years may yet elapse before a case comes up stronger

than Kemp v. Sober (1 Simons' Rep., N.S., 517), in which the late Lord Cranworth, in 1857, held that "twenty young ladies practising upon musical instruments" constituted a nuisance. Mr. Williams cites American cases in pari materiâ, on various branches of his subject. There are many points still doubtful in this country, for they await the courageous litigant, and on any of these the view taken by the American Courts would no doubt be carefully considered by Her Majesty's Judges.

By

Adulteration (Agricultural Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs). FRANCIS H. CRIPPS-DAY, M.A., Barrister-at-Law. Stevens and Sons, Lim.

1894.

We have here, from the pen of one of our valued contributors, a useful manual of Agricultural Law, written with the view of bringing the provisions of the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1893, within the range of the apprehension alike of the Farmer, the Merchant, and the practising Lawyer. An Act, in many respects so highly technical in its character, requires for its intelligent apprehension by the various classes of the community mainly concerned with it, a knowledge of various branches of science not commonly united in one and the same person. A man may be a good farmer without readily understanding many of the provisions of the present Act, and the same may be said of the tradesman and lawyer, either of whom may find himself confronted with requirements couched in a language not familiar to him.

Mr. Cripps-Day has approached his subject alike from its agricultural, mercantile, scientific, and legal aspects, while modestly disclaiming any pretence to bringing out a complete manual for any of those aspects. It is obvious, however, that he has studied each of these sides of his subject with care, and we think there is considerable evidence of his mastery of the situation on the Agricultural and Scientific sides, to an extent not common in the Legal Profession. This is a matter for congratulation to his readers, as some of the points involved require almost microscopic watching, considering that "the custom of the trade differentiates between different kinds of the same seed," and therefore "one trade name may permit of a larger percentage of impurity than another." In connection with this question, Mr. Cripps-Day gives us (p. 25) a sort

of genealogical table of Linseed, shewing its divisions into American, Calcutta, Egyptian, and East Indian, and the further sub-division of American into Ex docks, London made, and Thin Oblong, and of Calcutta into Ex docks, and London made Ex mill. The new Legislation presents a good many traps for the unwary, in connection with the meaning to be attached to its language, for some of which our author resorts to the Foods and Drugs Acts, 1875 and 1879, as throwing light upon them, although, as in the case of what may be held to be "to the prejudice" of the purchaser, much has yet to be submitted in the form of a query whether, under the given circumstances, the purchaser is likely to be held to be prejudiced.

We note with pleasure that Mr. Cripps-Day has largely availed himself of Foreign sources of information both as to the Legal and Scientific aspects of his subject. Thus he cites the contention of a distinguished French Jurist, M. Gain, on a point upon which he himself scarcely goes so far, but he tells us in a note, in loco, p. 64, that M. Gain's view of the French Law of 1888 as to the use of the word "guano" being excluded except as applied to a pure natural guano, was sustained in an action in Paris, 10th January, 1889, though he omits to mention the Court which so decided, an omission which he will, we hope, rectify in a future edition, as it would be instructive to know the nature of the Tribunal. Besides M. Gain's Manuel Juridique de l'Acheteur et du Marchand d'Engrais et d'Amendements (Paris. Libr. Marescq aîné. 1889), Mr. Cripps-Day not unfrequently cites various works of M. Déherain, and Papers by the same able author in the Revue des Deux Mondes, and other authoritative periodicals. His list of Specialists laid under contribution is wide and varied, both as to English and Foreign writers, and includes Darwin, Pasteur, Liebig, Fresenius, and other names in the front rank of Science, besides the publications of the Royal Society of Agriculture and the Board of Agriculture. Apart from thus picking the brains, so to speak, of the learned in many lands, Mr. Cripps-Day also gives us the latest Legislation on his subject in France, Belgium, Germany, and in those States of the United States of America which have taken it in hand, thus making his manual in reality a contribution to Comparative Legislation in this branch of Agricultural Law.