but from the history of the matter it would seem probable that it was so treated.

Privateers' instructions issued in 1693 contained the startling declaration that "corn . . . whithersoever it be bound" is to be good prize. These instructions were issued on May 2nd, 1693; six weeks afterwards (June 14th) the words in italics were struck out by warrant from the Queen.

Queen Anne's War.-The instructions for the war of 1702 contain a list of contraband articles, and neither corn nor victuals is amongst them. Probably the omission was in consequence of the Dutch treaty of 1674, by which such goods in Dutch ships were declared to be free. On April 28th, 1709, however, an Order in Council issued directing that all ships laden with corn for the enemy should be brought in, to be dealt with according to the Queen's pleasure. Whether by these words compulsory purchase

was intended does not appear.

Wars of the Eighteenth Century.-Instructions to privateers issued during the wars of 1737, 1744, 1756, 1762, 1780, and 1796 enumerate articles which are to be prizable as contraband; none of them expressly included corn or victuals. But it seems to be clear that, at all events in some of these wars, corn in neutral ships bound to an enemy's port was seized and condemned. And this seizure of neutral ships was not always confined to ships bound to a port of the enemy. In at least one case during the war of 1744 a neutral (Dutch) ship bound to a neutral port (Genoa) with corn on board was seized, in order to prevent the possibility of the corn falling into the hands of the enemy. The Dutch skipper was offered the price of his corn by the English admiral who seized it, but he refused to take the money, and instituted proceedings against his captors in the English Admiralty Court. The admiral was defended by the Government.

War of 1744: Origin of Statutory Pre-emption.-S. 34 of the present Naval Prize Bill is the lineal descendant of an Act passed during the war of 1744. It reproduces almost word for word 19 Geo. II., c. 36, which was passed in 1746 for the sole purpose of relieving the Government of the day from a difficulty in which they found themselves unexpectedly placed. During that war it was of the last importance to England to prevent victualling stores, including corn, from reaching the enemy. To declare them to be contraband, if not a direct violation of existing treaties, would have been certain to raise violent opposition from Sweden and Holland. So in order to avoid raising the question of contraband, the Government adopted the half measure of pre-emption. But here they met with an insuperable obstacle in the Navigation. Act (12 Chas. II., c. 18). By that Act goods of foreign growth or origin brought into this country by foreign ships not belonging to the country of which the cargoes were the produce were forfeited to the Crown and the informer; consequently purchase by the Government was impossible. The law officers indeed advised that the purchase should be made whilst

the cargoes were afloat, and that they should then be landed as the property of the King. This was obviously a mere evasion of the Navigation Act. The law officers' suggestion was not adopted, and the Act of 1746 was passed instead. It recites the Navigation Act, and enacts that it shall be lawful for the Commissioners of the Navy to buy for the service of the King "naval stores" in neutral vessels forcibly brought in, and that the customs officers may permit the same to be entered and landed, the Navigation Act notwithstanding.

Successive Prize Acts passed subsequently to 1746 have reproduced the enactment of that year, and the clause appears in the Bill of to-day. Its re-enactment by the Naval Prize Act, 1864, and by the present Bill seem to be wholly unnecessary, and may possibly give rise to misconception. At the present day the contention of England is that provisions other than victualling stores for the army or navy are not contraband. It will be noticed that the word "victualling" (stores) occurs in the present Bill, and does not occur in the Act of 1746. It occurs, in this connection, for the first time in the Prize Act of 1797 (33 Geo. III. c. 66, s. 47), and the circumstances under which that Act was passed may explain the reason for its insertion.

War of 1793: Seizure of American Corn Ships.-In May, 1793, the National Convention of France decreed that neutral corn ships bound for a port of the enemy (England) should be brought in and their cargoes condemned as prize. In June England retaliated by an Order in Council to the same effect. This Order was shortly afterwards revoked, re-issued in April, 1795, and shortly afterwards again revoked. Meanwhile many neutral corn ships had been seized and their cargoes condemned, and amongst these were some American ships and cargoes. The Government of the United States strongly protested against the action of the English Prize Court, and eventually the American owners of the ships and cargoes were indemnified by the English Government. Whilst this matter was being discussed, England and the States had concluded a treaty by which it was agreed that provisions "when becoming contraband according to the existing law of nations," should not be confiscated, but that they should be bought by the belligerent seizing them, and paid for. Before this treaty was ratified the Order in Council of April, 1795, had been issued, and shortly after the ratification of the treaty the Prize Act of 1797 was passed. In that Act for the first time an express power was given to purchase " 'victualling" as well as naval stores. Whether or no the insertion of the word "victualling" adds anything to the effect of the Act may be doubted, since corn had frequently been bought by the Government under the corresponding clause of previous Acts as "naval stores."

Should the Clause be Re-enacted?—The circumstances under which the Act of 1797 was passed, coupled with the fact that the American corn cargoes during the war of 1793 had been seized, not only as naval stores, but for

the purpose of distressing the enemy generally, together with England's previous action in the matter, lend colour to the suggestion that so long as the clause in question remains upon her Statute Book it is not open to England to contend that corn is not contraband. The objection taken by our Government in 1884 to the declaration made by France, during her operations in Tonkin, that rice was contraband, shows that, whatever she may have done in the past, England does not now assent to the view that victuals are by the law of nations contraband. On the whole, the reason for the enactment having passed away, it would seem better not to re-enact s. 34.

NUMBER OF JUDGES IN DIFFERENT

COUNTRIES.1

[Contributed by JOHN MACDONELL, ESQ., C. B., LL.D.]

Such a comparison is more
The term "judge" is very

I HAVE endeavoured to obtain information as to the number of judges in some other countries with a view to institute a comparison between them and England in this respect. By the courtesy of the Ministries of Justice and the Statistical Departments of various Governments, I am enabled to present information which, though very incomplete, has, so far as I know, never hitherto been collected. difficult than at first sight would appear. ambiguous. It may include officials with very different functions. In some countries work which here is performed by registrars, masters, and the like, devolves on "judges," "Richter," etc. It is not easy to say whether a particular functionary is a judge. The Masters in Lunacy, the Railway Commissioners, and the members of the Irish Land Commission. would probably be regarded as judges; but there would be a difference of opinion as to Commissioners most of whose duties are administrative. In foreign systems of law there would be very great difficulty in making such a separation, as will appear from the statements which follow. There is in truth no universally accepted conception of the functions which belong to a judge. There are, too, exceptional tribunals with special functions wholly different from those of the ordinary tribunals of the country; for example, tribunals of navigation and emigration, mining tribunals, etc. The figures given below as to English judges are open to criticism; they mix together judges whose time is wholly devoted to their duty as such, and those (such as recorders) who give to their judicial work only a small part of their time. The judicial systems of certain countries make large provision for the appointment of special judges or substitutes holding office, it may be, only for a short time. It is possible that those who have kindly supplied the details which follow have not always had in their minds precisely the same idea of a judge. The tables here printed must be studied in the light of the foregoing observations; but I do not This paper was originally intended for insertion in the Civil Judicial Statistics. It has been deemed advisable to print the paper in this journal.

2

? See M. Garsonnet's Traité de Procedure, i. 176, as to meaning of "magistrat."

think that any probable corrections would materially affect the results, which show a remarkable contrast between the English judicial system and systems elsewhere prevalent. At all events the figures are offered as tentative efforts to give precise ideas to a subject on which little information is accessible. I have not included figures as to the whole of the United States, first, because the system in most of the States is similar to our own, and, next, because there exists no complete enumeration, so far as I have been able to ascertain after communicating with the Department of Justice at Washington, of all the State judges.

JUDICIAL ESTABLISHMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM.

From Vienna has been sent an elaborate "Uebersicht über das richterliche Personale bei den Gerichten der im Reichsrathe vertrenenen Königreiche und Länder Öst-ung Monarchie" according to the state of things on January 1st, 1901. The territory of the Kingdom of Hungary is excluded. In a note it is observed that judges within the meaning of the Staatsgrundgesetz are (1) in the highest Courts only the presidents, senatepresidents, and Hofräthe; (2) in the Oberlandesgerichte and the Courts of first instance the presidents, vice-presidents, Oberlandesgerichtes-Räthe,