ade lawfully and actually established by or on behalf of either of the said Sovereigns, or by carrying Officers, Soldiers, Despatches, Arms, Ammunition, Military Stores or Materials, or any Article or Articles considered and deemed to be Contraband of War according to the Law or Modern Usages of Nations, for the Use or Service of either of the said Sovereigns, that all persons so offending, together with their Ships and Goods, will rightfully incur and be justly liable to hostile Capture, and to the Penalties denounced by the Law of Nations in that Behalf.

And We do hereby give Notice that all Our Subjects and Persons entitled to Our Protection who may misconduct themselves in the Premises will do so at their Peril, and of their own Wrong; and that they will in nowise obtain any Protection from Us against such Capture, or such Penalties as aforesaid, but will, on the contrary, incur Our high Displeasure by such Misconduct.

Given at Our Court at Windsor, this Thirtieth Day of April, in the year of Our Lord One thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven in the Fortieth Year of Our Reign.

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN.

On the same date, the following letter was addressed by the Earl of Derby to the Treasury, the Home Office, the Colonial Office, the War Office, the Admiralty, and the India Office :

Foreign Office,

April 30, 1877.

HER Majesty being fully determined to observe the duties of neutrality during the existing state of war between the Emperor of all the Russias and the Emperor of the Ottomans, and being moreover resolved to prevent, as far as possible, the use of Her Majesty's harbours, ports, and coasts, and the waters within Her Majesty's territorial jurisdiction, in aid of the warlike purposes of either belligerent, has commanded me to communicate to you, for your guidance, the following rules, which are to be treated and enforced as Her Majesty's orders and directions :

Her Majesty is pleased further to command that these rules shall be put in force in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man, and the Channel Islands, on and after the 5th of May instant, and in Her Majesty's territories and possessions beyond the seas, six days after the day when the Governor, or other chief authority of each of such territories or possessions respectively, shall have notified and published the same; stating in such Notification that the said rules are to be obeyed by all persons within the same territories and possessions.

1. During the continuance of the present state of war, all ships of war of either belligerent are prohibited from making use of any port or roadstead in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man, or the Channel Islands, or in any of Her Majesty's Colonies or foreign possessions or dependencies, or of any waters subject to the territorial juris

diction of the British Crown, as a station, or place of resort, for any warlike purpose, or for the purpose of obtaining any facilities of warlike equipment; and no ship of war of either belligerent shall hereafter be permitted to sail out of or leave any port, roadstead, or waters subject to British jurisdiction, from which any vessel of the other belligerent (whether the same shall be a ship of war or a merchant ship) shall have previously departed, until after the expiration of, at least, twenty-four hours from the departure of such last-mentioned vessel beyond the territorial jurisdiction of Her Majesty.

2. If any ship of war of either belligerent shall, after the time when this Order shall be first notified and put in force in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man, and the Channel Islands, and in the several Colonies and foreign possessions and dependencies of Her Majesty respectively, enter any port, roadstead, or waters belonging to Her Majesty, either in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man, or the Channel Islands, or in any of Her Majesty's Colonies or foreign possessions or dependencies, such vessel shall be required to depart and to put to sea within twenty-four hours after her entrance into such port, roadstead, or waters, except in case of stress of weather, or of her requiring provisions or things necessary for the subsistence of her crew, or repairs; in either of which cases the authorities of the port, or of the nearest port (as the case may be), shall require her to put to sea as soon as possible after the expiration of such period of twentyfour hours, without permitting her to take in supplies beyond what may be necessary for her immediate use; and no such vessel which may have been allowed to remain within British waters for the purpose of repair shall continue in any such port, roadstead, or waters, for a longer period than twenty-four hours after her necessary repairs shall have been completed. Provided, nevertheless, that in all cases in which there shall be any vessel (whether ships of war or merchant ships) of the said belligerent parties in the same port, roadstead, or waters within the territorial jurisdiction of Her Majesty, there shall be an interval of not less than twenty-four hours between the departure therefrom of any such vessel (whether a ship of war or merchant ship) of the one belligerent, and the subsequent departure therefrom of any ship of war of the other belligerent; and the time hereby limited for the departure of such ships of war respectively shall always, in case of necessity, be extended so far as may be requisite for giving effect to this proviso, but no further or otherwise.

3. No ship of war of either belligerent shall hereafter be permitted, while in any port, roadstead, or waters subject to the territorial jurisdiction of Her Majesty, to take in any supplies, except provisions and such other things as may be requisite for the subsistence of her crew, and except so much coal only as may be sufficient to carry such vessel to the nearest port of her own country, or to some nearer destination, and no coal shall again be supplied to any such ship of war in the same or any other port, roadstead, or waters subject to the territorial jurisdiction of Her Majesty, without special permission, until after the expiration of three months from the time when such coal may have been last supplied to her within British waters as aforesaid.

4 Armed ships of either party are interdicted from carrying prizes

made by them into the ports, harbours, roadsteads, or waters of the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, or any of Her Majesty's Colonies or possessions abroad.

I have, &c.,

(Signed) DERBY.

No. II.

THE INTERNATIONAL COURTS OF EGYPT. Besides the native tribunals, there are in Egypt sixteen or seventeen consulates, having rights of jurisdiction over the subjects of the nations they represent.

Consequently, in this state of things, the universal rule followed with regard to competence in civil and commercial matters, was that the defendant was necessarily brought before his own tribunal; that is to say, the native before the local tribunal, and the foreigner before the tribunal of his consulate. It was the absolute application of the rule actor sequitur forum rei. It was also the custom that each tribunal should apply a different legislation, and should judge according to its special procedure.

A first consequence of this mode of proceeding was, that at the moment parties entered into a contract, they could not know under what jurisdiction they would have to plead, nor according to what rules of law and procedure they would be judged, if they were obliged, afterwards, to cause the value and bearing of their contract to be ascertained by law.

The interest of each contracting party, therefore, during the execution of the bargain, was necessarily to endeavour, in the prospect of a lawsuit, to get possession of the object in litigation, and to retain the sums he might have to pay, in order to be sure, as defendant, of being judged at his own consulate, before judges and a public whom he knew, and who knew him, and according to his own laws. In a second place, when a plaintiff had before him several adversaries of different nationalities, he was obliged to enter into as many suits as there were defendants in the cause. It often resulted from this that there were as many contradictory judgments. The rules of equity are, doubtless, everywhere the same, and the principles of law which govern European legislations greatly resemble each other. It is, however, no less true that each of the tribunals called upon to decide a certain case, might not consider the fact and the law in the same manner.

A difficulty of the same nature was met with in matters where there was occasion for action on a guarantee, for the defendant could not sue the person who guaranteed, when he was not of the same nationality as himself.

In most cases, also, the tribunal could not take cognisance of cross claims, unless sometimes by way of compensation.

A very grave inconvenience further resulted in the appeal from consular sentences not being tried in Egypt.

The plaintiff who had gained his cause, in the first instance, was compelled at the call of his adversary, to plead his cause abroad, in a country where he knew no one, where it was difficult to defend himself, which often amounted, in fact, to a real denial of justice.

As regarded criminal matters, the action of the Egyptian Government was null in matters of police; infractions grave or light were committed by foreigners, but the Government, while responsible for the public peace, had no means of relieving itself of its responsibility; its police were disarmed, that is rather, the police of the different consulates, and, nevertheless, its responsibility still remained. When a crime was committed, the police had to ask for authority to arrest the foreign culprit, unless he were caught in the fact. When the culprit was arrested, the investigation was made by the consul, and the accused sent far away from the country which has been troubled by his crime; proved criminals were often known to go about at liberty in the sight and to the knowledge of everyone: this state of things was discouraging to the administration, dangerous to all, and the natives were convinced that, when a foreigner was sent back to his country to be tried, it was for the purpose of withdrawing him from punishment. Moreover, the European colony itself was alarmed at the state of things.

An International Commission, represented by Egypt, AustroHungary, the North German Confederation, the United States, France, Great Britain, Italy, and Russia having assembled at Cairo, on the 28th October, 1869, certain reforms proposed by the Egyptian Government in the administration of justice were examined. On the 10th November, 1874, certain judicial reforms were agreed on between the Khedive and the French Government, and on the 5th May, 1875, a similar agreement was entered into between the Khedive and Germany. On the 31st July, 1875, it was agreed between the British and Egyptian Governments, that all or any of the stipulations and reservations contained in the conventions relating to judicial reforms concluded between the Egyptian, and the French, and German Governments, and any other arrangements which the Egyptian Government might have already made, or might thereafter make with any foreign power on that subject, should be immediately and unconditionally extended by the Egyptian Government to Great Britain, and to British subjects, should the British Government at any time express a wish to that effect.

The Reformed Tribunals were inaugurated by order of the Khedive on the 28th June, 1875, with power to entertain a mixed procedure between natives and foreigners. For the use of these tribunals, new Egyptian codes were drawn up, consisting of a Civil Code, a Code of Commerce, a Code of Marine Commerce, a Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure, a Penal Code, and a Code of the Criminal Process (Instruction): they were ordered to come into force on the 1st January, 1876.

The constitution of these tribunals

is as follows:-There are three tribunals of first instance at Alexandria, Cairo, and Zagazig. Each tribunal is composed of seven

inferior judges (juges), four being foreigners, and three natives. The judgments are delivered by five of these judges, of whom three must be foreigners and two be natives. One of the foreigners presides with the title of Vice-President, and is chosen by the decided majority of the foreign and native members of the tribunal.

In commercial matters the tribunal associates to itself two merchants, one foreigner and one native; they have the right of deliberation, and are chosen by election.

There is at Alexandria, a superior tribunal, or Court of Appeal, composed of eleven superior judges (magistrats), four being natives and seven being foreigners. One of these foreign judges presides, under the title of Vice-President, and is chosen in the same manner as the vice-presidents of the lower tribunals. The decrees of the Court of Appeal are made by eight of the superior judges, of whom five must be foreigners and three be natives.

Both at the Court of Appeal, and at each tribunal, there are sworn interpreters chosen by the Government.

These tribunals alone take cognisance of all disputes in civil and commercial matters, between natives and foreigners, and between foreigners of different nationality, not affecting the personal status(en dehors du statut personnel). They are to take cognisance also of all real actions (actions réelles immobilières) between all persons, even belonging to the same nationality. The Government, the Administrations, the Daïras (the administration of the personal estate) of His Highness, the Khedive, and of the members of his family, are justiciable in these tribunals, in process with foreigners. These tribunals, without being able to adjudicate upon property of the public domain (domaine public), or to interfere with or to arrest the execution of an administrative measure, may adjudicate, in cases provided by the Civil Code, in any attempt directed against a right acquired by a foreigner by an act of administration.

Demands of foreigners against a religious (pieux) establishment, claiming the real property possessed by such an establishment, are not to be submitted to these tribunals; but these tribunals may determine on the intended demand, on the question of legal possession, without reference to whom may be the plaintiff or defendant. The fact alone of the existence of a hypothèque (mortgage) in favour of a foreigner on real property, without reference to the possesseur and to the propriétaire, renders these tribunals competent to determine on the validity of the hypothèque and on all its consequences, up to and including the forced sale of the realty, as well as the distribution of the proceeds.

All proceedings are conducted in the language of the country, Italian and French.

The execution of the judgments takes place apart from all administrative consular action or otherwise, and is on the order of the tribunal. It is carried out by the officers of the tribunal, with the assistance of the local authorities, should the same be necessary, but always apart from all administrative interference. The officer charged with the execution is obliged to warn the consulate involved of the day and hour of the execution, under pain of nullity and of damages against himself. The consul so warned has the means of being present at