« PrejšnjaNaprej »
a famous book with the Canonists, has the right to the first place. The thirteenth century produced several, the best known being no doubt those primitive manuals of "Kaiserrecht" the Sachsenspiegel or Speculum Saxonicum compiled by Eike von Repgow about 1230, and the Schwabenspiegel or Speculum Suevicum, also called Lantrehtbuoch (no doubt founded on its Saxon predecessor), compiled by an anonymous editor about 1278. Both have been edited many times, and are among the most valuable monuments of the early German law. On the same lines is the Spiegel der Deutschen Leute. To about 1240 belongs the Speculum Regale, known in the vernacular as KonungsSkuggsja or Kongs-Skuggsio, chiefly a description of Iceland and Greenland and the Northern Seas. This, like the German specula, has gone through numerous editions, and may be considered a law book by virtue of the appendix annexed to it. This is a treatise on the relations of Church and State in Norway, and contains numerous citations from the Corpus Juris Canonici. From the South of Europe come the Speculum Juris of Durandus (already mentioned), and the Especulo o Espejo de Todos los Derechos of Alfonso el Sabio. To the fourteenth century belongs the Speculum de Tregua et Pace of Joannes Andre (ded. 1348), the framer of the statutes of Bologna University and the defender of the legality of the election of Boniface VIII. In the same century was written the first and last English
1 Mr. Jenks alludes to the legends which grew up later, by which the authorship of these specula was attributed to kings and emperors. (Law and Politics in the Middle Ages, p. 48).
* There is an edition of the Sachsenspiegel dated as early as 1484, published at Augsburg by Theodoric von Bocksdorf, Bishop of Nuremberg. It was glossed during the same century by Nicholas Wurm.
3 Not printed until 1857.
Not to be confounded with the Speculum Regum of Godfrey of Viterbo, or the Speculum Regale, the work of one Williams, who prophesied in it the death of James I. in 1625, and suffered for treason.
The best seems to be that of Christiania, 1848.
mirror of a strictly legal nature. The "Mirror of Justices," though stated by Plowden1 to have been written before the Conquest, was undoubtedly the work of Andrew Horne or Horn, who died in 1328. Whether it was compiled during this or the previous century seems quite uncertain. It was first published in 1642 as Miroir des Justices vel Speculum Justitiarorum, and translated into English by William Hughes four years afterwards.. The work is exceedingly inaccurate in its law, and probably was, as Professor Maitland suggests, professionally a failure. This would account for the delay in publishing a manuscript which must have been known long before 1642. Of a similar title, but in other respects very different, was the "Myrroure for Magistrates," chiefly known by the "Induction" written by Thomas Sackville, Earl of Dorset, about 1557. The main body of the work, like the "Induction" in somewhat halting verse, was completed by Baldwin and Ferrers, and published in 1559 and 1563. It is rather a moral than a legal work, but has incidental legal references. In 1584 appeared "A Mirour for Magestrates of Cyties," by that dull and voluminous writer, George Whetstone. It was, no doubt, suggested by the previous work. To the same century belong Der Richterlich Clagspiegel of Sebastian Brant, and Der Layenspiegel of Ulrich Tengler. The first is a treatise on procedure, the second deals more particularly with torture as applied in the Suabian Courts. From Spain came Pedro Belluga, Speculum Principum ac Justitia in the sixteenth century, and in the seventeenth Gabriel Berart,
2 The latest edition is the one edited for the Selden Society by Mr. W. J. Whittaker (1895). He puts the date at 1285 to 1290, but there is not much evidence.
* Strassburg, 1542.
+ib., 1544. Valencia, 1530.
Speculum Visitationis, a treatise on the jurisdiction of visitors of corporations.
Occasionally specula have been associated with the names of eminent lawyers. For instance in 1870 a translation of Blossius under the name of The Mirror for Monks was published by Sir John Duke Coleridge, then AttorneyGeneral, afterwards Lord Coleridge, C.J.
Enough has perhaps been said to draw the attention of the reader to a curious and almost obsolete class of books, They took advantage of a fashionable term. Some succeeded and some did not, but in any case the title was no doubt adopted with a view of attracting the customers of the bookseller. With regard to legal specula the bibliography is as complete as the writer can make it; with regard to others of course only some of the more interesting and important have been named. A full bibliography of these would probably mean the naming of some hundreds of volumes, and would be second in number only to the books of emblems. A list of such of the latter as are of legal interest, such as Alciati's, still remains to be compiled.
NOTE.-The History of the word Summa is strikingly similar to that of Speculum. The theologians and the lawyers appear to have begun to use it about the same time, the former probably a little the earlier, for the Summa Sententiarum, attributed to Hugh of St. Victor, must have been prior in date to Vacarius' Summa de Matrimonio (see LAW QUARTERLY REVIEW for 1897). As some specula were in verse, so was at least one legal summa, or ékλoyý, to use its Byzantine equivalent. Michael Constantine Psellus (1020-1105), wrote his Ekλoyý or Synopsis in verse of the most pedestrian kind possible. Baldus altered the term a little and called some of his writings Summaria. Among the more important legal summa were the Summa Placentini, the Summa Juris Civilis of Azo, the Summa Aurea or Hostiensis, and the Summa Artis Notariæ. The greatest summa of all was the Summa Theologiæ of St. Thomas Aquinas, and this may be to some extent claimed by the lawyers, as though the work is primarily theological and ethical, it contains both definitions and discussions of legal terms and principles. In one case the writers of summa and specula differed. There seems to have been no term used for the writer of a speculum, but the writer of a summa was classed among summista. Like speculum, summa in its literary sense came into vogue after the period of the Corpus Juris].
IV. THE INTERPRETATION OF TREATIES.
(Continued from page 9)
HE true interpretation of the clause in dispute necessarily turns on the intention of the contracting parties in 1825, as evidenced by the record of their negotiations. These were carried on by the Russian Foreign Minister and Count Lieven (Russian Ambassador at the Court of St. James) on the one side, and by Sir Charles Bagot, our Ambassador at St. Petersburg, under the instructions of George Canning (then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs) on the other, Bagot being subsequently displaced by Stratford Canning, speciallyappointed plenipotentiary for the conclusion of the treaty. It is impossible in a short space to do more than attempt candidly to recapitulate the results arrived at by a perusal of the correspondence on both sides.1 From this it appears :
(1.) That the treaty was made principally in order to settle once for all Russia's pretensions to dominion over the Pacific in which the valuable seal fisheries were involved; the settlement of the Continental boundaries was a subsidiary matter introduced mainly in order to afford Russia the opportunity for retiring from her untenable position on the other matter without loss to her dignity or hurt to her amour propre.
(2.) That the boundary was to follow the crest of the chain of mountains nearest the sea, but that it was regarded as quite possible that no complete chain existed, and in that event the natural was meant to be supplemented by the artificial boundary. Thus we find that the Hudson Bay Company, on being consulted as to the Russian proposals, suggested the expediency of some more definite
1 Vide, The Fur Seal Arbitration Papers, 1893.
demarcation on the coast than the supposed chain of mountains parallel to it.
(3.) That what the Russo-American Company and what Russia herself sought was a monopoly of trade with the Indians; and, in the words of Mr. Polatina, one of the Russian plenipotentiaries (in his report to the Russian foreign office), "the establishment of a barrier at which "could be stopped once for all, to the north and west of "the coast allotted to the Russo-American Company, the "encroachments of the English agents of the Hudson Bay Company."
(4.) That it was urged as a matter essential to the interests of Russia that she should control the sea-board at all points. Thus she rejected the proposal that the boundary should be formed by the seaward base of the mountains nearest the sea, because she conceived that in places it might reach to the ocean. It cannot be denied that this policy is not altogether borne out by Article VI., by which the right is granted to British subjects of navigating freely and without hindrance "all the rivers and "streams which in their course towards the Pacific Ocean "" may cross the line of demarcation described in Article "III. of the present Convention." But treaties are nearly always formed on the lines of give and take, and further, the right is in the nature of a licence only, and it is not clear that it would extend to ships of war.
Arguments have been advanced on the side of the United States from prescription and from the maps published since 1825. But the facts are nearly all contested by writers on the other side; and, even if they are correct, the arguments based upon them do not carry conviction. On the whole, it appears that the sea mountains were intended to form the boundary, which was to be helped out, if necessary, by an artificial line ten leagues from the coast; and, though here we are on more delicate ground,