time, and that a British periodical devoted to international law would help to this end." The editor adds that the war has left in the minds of many people the belief that international law is a thing of the past, and it therefore behoves all those who believe that it is still a living force to work for that "firm establishment of the understandings of international law as the actual rule of conduct among governments," which, in the words of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the allied nations are pledged to regard as a means of achieving international peace and security. It is further added, and very properly, that if international law is still a living force, as it certainly is, it is equally true that the experiences of the last few years have shown that much that was once regarded as definitely established must now be re-examined in the light of modern developments, which have vitally affected the old rules of war and neutrality and made new rules necessary.

The Year Book, in the main, consists of a series of articles on different subjects contributed by a group of distinguished English authorities in the field of international law. The first and one of the most important is a paper by Sir Erle Richards on "The British Prize Courts and the War." At the outset he points out that the British Prize Courts during the late war were called upon to decide important questions arising out of new and novel conditions such as were unknown to Lord Stowell. But, in deciding these questions, the Prize Courts did not make new law: they accepted and developed the principles laid down by Lord Stowell so as to make them applicable to the new and changed conditions of the late war. At the outset the Privy Council, the final Court of Appeal in prize cases, asserted a remarkable independence by a declaration to the effect that the British Prize Courts were not bound by Orders in Council issued by the Executive when such orders were contrary to the established principles of international law; but the author regrets that the Prize Courts themselves took the position that enemy subjects had no right to appear and defend their claims except where the right was granted by treaty or international convention. In this respect the German Prize Courts adopted a more liberal view, and allowed enemy subjects to appear before them in all cases, whether the claim asserted. was in pursuance of a specific treaty right or not. Sir Erle Richards points out in his article, and very properly, that the late war demonstrated conclusively the impracticability of maintaining the old distinction between absolute and conditional contraband and of applying different rules to the transportation of the two classes of goods. He also shows, and with equal conclusiveness, that if a belligerent has a right to prevent the carriage of contraband direct to the enemy, he has an equal right to prevent its carriage indirectly through the intermediary of adjacent neutral ports. In short, the ultimate and not the immediate destination is the proper test, and it makes no difference whether the voyage is continuous or whether there are two or more voyages, or whether one is by sea and the other by land. He also adds, with perfectly

just reason, that, in such cases, the captor must be allowed to produce extrinsic evidence to show the real destination of the goods and not be limited to the production of evidence afforded by the ship's papers, since, as the late war showed in many cases, the papers often do not reveal the true destination. Regarding the more fiercely controverted question as to the right of a belligerent to disregard the rules of international law established for the protection of neutrals, in order to retaliate against an enemy who disregards the laws of war, the argument of the learned author is less convincing. He readily admits that the right claimed, if allowed, would enable belligerents to override the whole of the protection which the common law of nations and treaties have established for the benefit of neutrals. On the other hand, if one belligerent disregards the limits set by the law, in order to promote his own ends, his adversary must be allowed an equal freedom, since he cannot be compelled to fight at a disadvantage. In fact, he asserts, the right of retaliation against neutrals, as it was asserted in the cases of the Stigstad and the Leonora in 1919, was a settled doctrine of the English Prize Courts, having been recognised by the higher prize tribunal during the Napoleonic Wars. Professor Pearce Higgins, in a paper entitled "Submarine Warfare," maintains, very correctly in my opinion, that the questions raised by the employment of the submarine as an instrument of destruction do not require the making of new laws, but simply the application and observance of rules long established, and until the recent war generally observed and respected. He recognises, as the authorities generally do, and as the naval codes provide, that enemy merchant vessels may be legitimately destroyed subject to certain conditions and restrictions, one of the oldest of which is that provision must be made for the safety of the crew and passengers. He analyses in turn the arguments put forward by the Germans in defence of the claim for a special immunity for submarines from the obligation to conform to this humane and long-established rule, and concludes that no such immunity can be recognised; in short, new inventions can have no effect on long-established rules founded on considerations of humanity; the employment of new instruments of destruction must be adjusted to the law, and not the law to the instrument. He might have gone further, and laid down the rule that the employment of submarines, at least in their present state of development, for the destruction of merchant vessels should be prohibited, for the good reason that they have no facilities for providing for the safety of crews and passengers; in short, it is practically impossible for them to conform to the law of nations respecting prize destruction, which is at the same time the law of humanity.

In a paper entitled "The Peace Treaty in its Effects on Private Property," Dr. E. J. Schuster analyses the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles which affect private property and private rights. These provisions are of two kinds: (1) those which deprive individuals of property and rights, and (2) those which confer property and rights. The

main question which remains to be answered, he says, is whether the treatment of private property after the conclusion of peace, in the manner exemplified by the Treaty of Versailles, set an example which ought to be followed in the future. He leaves us in doubt as to his own opinion, although he states the arguments for and against the policy adopted. The experiences of the late war, he adds, destroyed the last remnant of any foundation for the distinction between the armed forces and the unarmed population.

It is quite impossible, within the limits of this review, to summarise all the excellent papers which make up the Year Book. It must suffice only to mention the article by Sir Geoffrey Butler entitled "Sovereignty and the League of Nations," the article by Professor Charteris on "The Legal Position of Merchantmen in Foreign Ports and National Waters" (in which the author analyses and compares the Anglo-American rule with the French rule), the article by Mr. Norman Bentwich on "The Legal Administration of Palestine under the British Occupation," the article by Sir John MacDonell on "International Labour Conventions," and two valuable unsigned articles, one on "Changes in the Organisation of the Foreign and Diplomatic Service," and the other on "The League of Nations and the Laws of War," in the latter of which the author points out the difficulties which stand in the way of the adoption by the League of Nations of a fixed code of rules governing the conduct of war. The task which the League of Nations should undertake, in his opinion, is rather the building up of a new body of international law of peace. In short, it is by the development of the law of peace rather than by attempts to codify the laws of war, that a stable international law can be built up by the League of Nations.

In addition to formal articles, the Year Book contains an appreciation of the life and work of the late Professor Oppenheim by his friend, Mr. E. A. Whittuck; notes on the late Professors Lammasch, T. J. Lawrence, and Pitt Cobbett-four eminent English authorities on international law who have recently been taken by death; a list of international agreements concluded between various Powers during the years 1919-20, and a valuable bibliographical list of the recent literature of interest to students of international law.

Altogether the Year Book is a very useful and creditable addition to the periodical literature of international law; its promoters have done a distinct service in establishing it, and it is to be hoped that it will receive the support of all those who believe in the cause which it is designed to promote..

JAMES W. GARNER.

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION.

In a slender and eminently readable volume Mr. Cecil Carr has published the substance of three lectures which he delivered at Cambridge in April 1921 on Delegated Legislation. He examines its effect on the statute-book and states the case for delegation, discusses the safeguards against its abuse, describes and illustrates the forms which it assumes and the mode in which it is published, and traces its historical development. No one could be better qualified to perform this task. As assistant to Mr. Alexander Pulling, the editor of the Statutory Rules and Orders, he has acquired practical familiarity with the machinery and working of this class of legislation, and understands and appreciates the importance and difficulty of the problems which it raises. And he is master of a style which makes his treatment of a technical subject easy and attractive reading.

Bentham's picture of a "complete code of laws," which was to supply the ordinary citizen with all that he need know about the law is, as Mr. Carr observes, an ideal which daily grows dimmer. It never could be realised, even at a time when English statute law was allowed and encouraged to descend far more deeply into detail than it can to-day. It is now further than ever from the realm of actualities and possibilities. The citizen father who was commanded to open the chapter "Of Fathers," the citizen agriculturist who was ordered to consult the chapter "Of Agriculture," would get very inadequate help from the English statute-book, but would have to grope his way through a jungle of departmental codes, regulations and instructions, all containing law which he is bound to observe. And to the intricacies of this jungle there was, until recently, no official guide. Copies of the documents embodying this class of legislation could be unearthed in the official Gazette, if one knew how and where to look for them. But how could the ordinary citizen be expected to make such a search? An important departure was made in 1890, since which time the statutory rules and orders of each year have been collected and published in volumes resembling the annual volumes of statutes, and those for the time being in force have been indexed periodically like the statutes. Thus some crumbs of comfort are supplied to the unfortunate citizen who cannot plead ignorance of the law as an excuse.

The case for delegated legislation is as strong as ever, and exercise of the powers given by it are specially useful where rules made under those powers are tentative, provisional, and temporary, needing more frequent amendment than can be conveniently made by the ordinary methods of parliamentary legislation. To this class belonged the emergency rules made during the war. Hence the portentous growth of delegated legislation in recent years. Mr. Carr gives some statistics illustrating this growth. Writing in 1921, he says:

Last year, while 82 Acts of Parliament were placed on the statute-book, more than ten times as many Statutory Rules and Orders" of a public character were officially registered under the Rules Publication Act. The annual volume of public general statutes for 1920 occupied less than 600 pages; the two volumes of statutory rules and orders for the same period occupy about five times as many. The excess in mere point of bulk of delegated legislation over direct legislation has been visible for nearly thirty years.

The system of publication and indexing introduced in 1890, though sound in principle, runs some risk of breaking down in practice under the increasing burden imposed upon it, and the prohibitive cost of printing and publishing. There are some who urge that the ordinary practitioner or official has no use for nine-tenths of the annual volume or volumes supplied to him, and that what he really needs is a handy and inexpensive copy of the rules or group of rules with which he is specially concerned, separate Stationery Office publications instead of comprehensive volumes. However this may be, we should all agree that our legislative methods ought to be elastic and adaptable to the needs of the times, and the time has possibly arrived for reconsidering and revising, in the light of new experience, the regulations made and the practice adopted during the last decade of the last century. On this and on similar problems arising out of his subject Mr. Carr's little book throws abundant and instructive light. It is necessarily brief, and does not pretend to be exhaustive, for the subject matter is large and complicated. But it can be confidently recommended to those who, whether in this country, in the several parts of the British dominions, or in foreign countries, desire to know how the methods of subordinate or delegated legislation are now worked in England.

C. P. ILBERT.

THE ADDRESSES OF MR. HENRY TAFT.1

THESE collected essays and addresses of Mr. Henry W. Taft, an eminent and highly respected member of the New York Bar-English readers may be interested in knowing that he is a brother of ex-President (now Chief Justice) William H. Taft-deal with a great variety of subjects. The Introduction contains a survey of sundry controverted legal questions which have lately received much attention in the United States, and one of these, the ill-advised scheme for allowing judicial decisions to be overruled by a vote of the whole people, is also discussed in a separate paper. Several relate to the history and present position of the Bar as a profession, including the work which its members did during the Great War. Two or three are concerned with technical legal topics, and some others will have an interest for the international lawyer

1 Occasional Papers and Addresses of an American Lawyer, by Henry W. Taft, of the New York Bar. (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1920).