questions involving these principles may arise in the Courts for solution. The subject will naturally fall to be divided into two branches-(A.) English Divorce; (B.) Foreign Divorce.

E. H. MONNIER.

IV. CURRENT NOTES ON INTERNATIONAL

LAW.

Chili and the Diplomatic Right of Asylum.

AS was anticipated, the Congressionalists have proved Α victorious. The new Government has been generally

recognised even by States which previously hesitated to recognise the "rebels" as belligerents. Balmaceda has died by his own hand, and those of his followers who were not killed in battle have had to seek asylum in European men-of-war, or under the ægis of Ambassadorial privilege.

The United States Minister, Mr. Patrick Egan, has specially distinguished himself in affording protection to the fugitive Balmacedists, much to the chagrin of the victorious party.*

The rule of International Law as to the right of protection and asylum by Diplomatic agents is not very well defined. It would seem clear that "it is a practice which, from the necessity of the case, is exercised to a greater or less extent by every civilised State in regard to barbarous or semi-barbarous countries."+ Owing to the chronic revolutionary condition of the South American Republics, most European States have at times been compelled to include them for this particular purpose in the class of countries mentioned.

* See Times, 7th October, 1891.

† See Mr. Secretary Seward's Note, 1868, Wharton's Digest, § 104.

It is another curious illustration, however, of the lack of uniformity between the protestations and practice of the U.S. Government that its Minister in Chili should have been the readiest to afford such indiscriminate protection to the members of the late Government. In the wellknown Haytian Case in 1875, the U.S. Government deprecated the action of its representative in these words: "It is regretted that you deemed yourself justified by an impulse of humanity to grant such an asylum. You have repeatedly been instructed that such a practice has no basis in public law, and, so far as this Government is concerned, is believed to be contrary to sound policy."*

So recently as 1885, Mr. Bayard, then Secretary of State, said, "The Government of the United States does not claim for its legations abroad any extra-territorial privileges of asylum," and this principle is confirmed by the Printed Personal Instructions issued to U.S. Diplomatic agents.

There is no reasonable doubt that if a Minister chooses to grant asylum to refugees, the foreign State has no right forcibly to arrest the latter in the Embassy.† The new Government of Chili has expressly recognised this.‡

* Wharton's Digest, § 104.

+ There was a curious case in 1726, when the Duke of Ripperda, Minister of Philip II., took refuge in the Hotel of the British Ambassador at Madrid, and was taken away by force, and without any subsequent protest by the British Government. See Wharton's Digest, § 104. [The statement of the view taken by the British Government of the Ripperda case, put forth by Mr. Secretary Bayard, and printed by Wharton, loc. cit., does not appear to agree with the facts, as stated by Phillimore, Comm. upon Int. Law, 3rd Ed., III., p. 90, where it is mentioned that "the English Ambassador resented the act as a violation of ambassadorial privileges, and while sharp remonstrances were passing between the two Courts, an English fleet arrived in the Spanish waters." As a matter of fact, a very curious position of affairs ensued between Great Britain and Spain, during which hostile manifestations took place, and the attitude of Spain was described in a Speech from the Throne as little short of a Declaration of War.—ED.]

See especially Times, 14th September, 1891.

It would seem to be a good ground, however, in many cases, to demand the recall of the Minister.*

In connection with another matter it may be noted that the Itata has been released by the U.S. Court upon a bond being given for a penalty of $120,000t, and still more recently the proceedings have been dismissed as against all parties concerned.‡ J. M. GOVER.

Quarterly Notes.

Law at the International Congresses, London, 1891. As we noted in our August number, by anticipation, Law, as an allied subject to the subject-matter proper of each of the three International Congresses which have marked the Autumn of this year in London, has been exceptionally in the forefront.

At the International Congress of Hygiene and Demography, Mr. Gainsford Bruce, Q.C., M.P., and our own contributor, Mr. Rutherfurd, of the Middle Temple, dealt with questions of importance in Sanitary Legislation, while the Law and Practice of Quarantine, as affecting some of our principal Colonies, formed the topic of Papers by Delegates representing Canada and Australia, as well as England and the Continent. At the International Congress of Orientalists, as we see by the specially interesting Congress number for October of the Asiatic Quarterly Review (Oriental University Institute, Woking), Law and Administration in the French Colonies and Protectorates of the Far East, and Mohammedan Law in Algeria

[Since these pages were in type, we learn from the Morning Post, October 21st, 1891, that the U.S. Government has recognised the right of asylum involved in the recent action of its Minister. This seems to bear the aspect of a new departure on the part of the U.S.A. It should be noted that the Spanish and Argentine Diplomatic Representatives acted in the same manner as Mr. Egan.-ED.]

+ Times, 7th October, 1891,

Times, 4th November, 1891.

and Tunisia, were dealt with by Mr. C. H. E. Carmichael, M.A., one of the Sectional Secretaries, while M. Pret discussed the Modern Legislation of Japan from an Ethnographical point of view. At the International FolkLore Congress, the Presidential Address in the Section of Institutions, from the learned pen of Sir Frederick Pollock, Bart., brought out the points of contact between the investigations carried on under the name of Folk-Lore and the researches of such Jurists as the late Sir Henry Maine and others, while Papers, such as that read by Dr. Winternitz, in the Institutions Section, on Indo-European Customs, with special reference to Marriage Customs, set this important fact in still higher relief. When the Transactions of the respective Congresses are before us, we shall hope to return to these considerations in greater detail.

Reviews.

Journal du Droit International Privé. Edited by EDOUARD CLUNET, Advocate at the Court of Appeal. Paris: Marchal

et Billard. 1891.

The latest issues of this old friend and contemporary of ours are full of varied and interesting matter. The Part Nos. VII.-X., for the current year, offers us a mass of intellectual food from which we can only at present spare the space to mention briefly that it contains contributions on Private International Law in Bosnia and Herzegovina, by M. Geneste, on Political crimes and offences (délits) and allied infractions, with reference to recent Extradition Questions, by M. Lenepveu de la Font, and one of a series on Foreigners before the Consular and Local Courts in Turkey, by M. Salem, Advocate at Salonica. Among minor notes we have some dealing with recent events in AlsaceLorraine, Chili, Switzerland, and elsewhere, bearing upon International Law, the phrase Droit International Privé being taken by our valued friend, M. Clunet, in the widest sense possible, including much which is generally assigned to the Public Law of Nations.

*Pressure on our space obliges us to hold over much

matter in hand.-ED.

THE

LAW MAGAZINE AND REVIEW.

No. CCLXXXIII.-FEBRUARY, 1892.

I. A NEW DEPARTURE IN THE LAW OF

THE

66

BAILMENTS.

(THE COUPÉ CO. v. MADDICK.)

HE case of The Coupé Co. v. Maddick is interesting on several grounds. The learned Judges who decided it (Mr. Justice Cave and Mr. Justice Charles) were of opinion. that "no case in point can be found on either side of the question"; they were, therefore, constrained to do what learned Judges do not very frequently do-at least in reported cases-viz., decide the point before them on general considerations," so that students of the Law, who turn to the report of the case, have the opportunity of revelling in a conjuncture of what to any true student must be rare and fascinating treats-a fresh presentment of facts and a novel elucidation of principles arising in a single short case. Besides, there is the general interest of the problem, which is not a little enhanced by its solution at the hands of the learned Judges; to say nothing of the practical and general importance of the points on which the decision turns.

A short time may, therefore, it is fair to assume, not unprofitably be spent in considering this case.

The Coupé Company brought an action in the Bloomsbury County Court, to recover damages from the defendant for injuries to a carriage and horse hired from them by the

* L.R. [1891] 2 Q.B. 413.