(eBook PDF) Business Law (Macmillan

Law Masters) 4th ed. 2009 Edition

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebooksecure.com/download/ebook-pdf-business-law-macmillan-law-masters-4
th-ed-2009-edition/
 c
0
·-
~
·-
-,:,
(l)
..c
~

palgrave macmillan law masters

•
en u
 ••
Contents VII

5 Remedies for contract and tort 115

Learning objectives 115
Hot Topic: Actions in contract and/or tort 115
5.1 Limitation of actions in contract and in tort 116
5.2 Compensatory damages in contract 118
5.3 Remoteness of damage in contract 121
5.4 Mitigation of loss 122
5.5 Contributory negligence 122
5.6 Non-compensatory damages in contract 122
Hot Topic: Liquidated and unliquidated damages: penalty clauses in
business contracts 122
5.7 Compensatory damages in tort 123
5.8 Remoteness of damage in tort 124
5.9 Intervening cause 125
5.10 Mitigation of damages 126
Hot Topic: Contributory negligence 127
5.11 Pure economic loss 127
5 .12 Non-compensatory damages in tort 128
Hot Topic: The future of exemplary damages 128
5.13 Equitable remedies in contract 129
5.14 Equitable remedies in tort 131
5.15 Restitutionary remedies 131
End of Chapter Summary 133
Questions 133

Part 111 Business Organisations 135

6 The business forms available under UK law 139
Learning objectives 139
6 .1 Introduction 139
6. 2 Sole traders 139
6.3 General partnerships 140
6.4 Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) 140
6.5 Registered companies 141
Hot Topic: Private companies as a major vehicle of control 143
6.6 Registration formalities for registered companies 144
6. 7 Registration of company names 145
6.8 The registered office 147
6.9 The company as a separate legal person: the rule in Salomon v. Salomon 148
Hot Topic: Reforming corporate manslaughter 152
Hot Topic: Directors' personal liability 154
6.10 Some major distinctions between business organisations 154
End of Chapter Summary 157
Questions 157

7 Partnerships 159
Learning objectives 159
7.1 General partnerships 159
7.2 Forming a partnership 162
Hot Topic: Salaried partners 163
 •••
VI 11 Contents

7 .3 The relationships of partners to persons dealing with them 164

7 .4 Relationships between partners 169
7 .5 Partnership property 169
7 .6 Partners' rights 170
7. 7 Partners' duties 171
7 .8 Rights of assignee of partnership share 172
7.9 Dissolution of partnership 172
7 .10 The consequences of dissolution 174
7 .11 Treatment of assets on dissolution 175
7 .12 Profits made after dissolution but before winding up 176
7 .13 Rescission of partnership agreement 176
7 .14 Dissolution of insolvent partnership 177
7 .15 Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) 177
End of Chapter Summary 180
Questions 180

8 Registered companies: constitution and contracts 182

Learning objectives 182
8 .1 Company law in the UK 182
Hot Topic: Competition between European company law regimes 183
8.2 The constitution of a UK registered company 183
Hot Topic: The European public limited liability company - societas
europaea (SE) and the proposed European private company -
societas private europaea (SPE) 189
End of Topic Summary 190
Questions on the company constitution 190
8.3 Company contracts 191
8.4 Pre-incorporation contracts: s.51 191
8.5 Contracts beyond the company's capacity 193
8.6 Contracts beyond the powers of directors to bind the company 194
8. 7 Third party protection for contracts beyond the company's capacity
or the directors' authority 195
8.8 Form of company contracts 198
End of Topic Summary 198
Questions on company contracts 199

9 Registered companies: share capital 200

Learning objectives 200
9 .1 Categories of share capital 200
9.2 Capital as the creditors' guarantee fund 201
9.3 Raising capital 202
9.4 Maintenance of capital 205
9.5 Financial assistance for the purchase of own shares 213
9.6 Public companies taking charge over their shares 215
End of Topic Summary 215
Questions 21 6

10 Registered companies: shares and shareholders and minority

protection 217
Learning objectives 217
 Contents

10.1 A company's members 217

10.2 Shares and share capital of a company 217
10.3 Allotment of shares: general provisions 218
10.4 Allotment of equity securities: shareholders' right of pre-emption 218
10.5 Certification and transfer of securities 219
10. 6 Estoppel by share certificate 220
10. 7 Information about interests in a company's shares 221
10.8 Registered and bearer shares 221
10.9 Classes of shares and class rights 222
10.10 Variation of class rights 223
10.11 Ways of ceasing to be a member 225
10.12 The register of members 225
10. 13 Restrictions on transfers 226
10.14 The register of substantial shareholdings 227
End of Topic Summary 227
10.15 Minority protection 227
10.16 Statutory derivative claims by members 228
10.17 Petition against unfair prejudice 229
10.18 Just and equitable winding-up 231
10. 19 DTI investigations 232
End of Topic Summary 233
Questions on shares and shareholders 233
Questions on minority protection 233

11 Registered companies: directors and directors' duties 235

Learning objectives 235
Hot Topic: Corporate governance in the UK 235
11 .1 The directors 236
Hot Topic: Management structure of pies and SEs 238
11 .2 Appointment and retirement of directors 239
11 .3 Register of directors 240
11.4 Removal of directors 240
11 .5 Disqualification of directors 240
11 .6 Directors' duties 244
11 .7 Directors' liabilities 252
11 .8 Transactions with directors requiring approval of members 253
11.9 Directors' service contracts 257
Hot Topic: Employee involvement in SEs 257
11 .10 Insider dealing 258
11 .11 The company secretary 258
End of Topic Summary 258
Questions 259

12 Registered companies: loan capital 260

Learning objectives 260
12.1 Debentures and debenture stock 260
12.2 Charges over company assets 261
Hot Topic: Fixed or floating? 262
12.3 The registration of charges 264
 Contents

12.4 The remedies of the debenture holders 268

12.5 Application to LLPs 268
End of Chapter Summary 269
Questions 269

13 Registered companies: corporate insolvency 271

Learning Objectives 271
13.1 Introduction 271
13. 2 Law of Property Act receivers 272
Hot Topic: Insolvency and pensions crisis - European initiative 272
13.3 Administration 277
13.4 Company voluntary arrangements (CVAs) 286
13.5 Company winding-up 287
13.6 Insolvent general partnerships 300
Hot Topic: The global dimension 302
End of Chapter Summary 303
Questions 303

Part IV Business Assets and Securing Loans 305

14 Business property 309
Learning Objectives 309
14.1 The nature and classification of business property 309
14.2 Real property 309
14.3 Choses (things) in possession 311
14.4 Choses (things) in action 312
14.5 Trade marks and brand names 313
Hot Topic: Registering real people as a trade mark 319
14. 6 Patents 320
14. 7 Protection of form and appearance: copyright and design 325
Hot Topic: Copyright clock running out for Elvis 332
14.8 Artists' resale right 333
14.9 Organisations acting as collecting agencies for their author/creator
members 334
14.10 Criminal liability 335
14.11 Product design protection 335
End of Chapter Summary 339
Questions 339

15 Securing loans 340

Learning Objectives 340
15.1 The nature of a security 340
15.2 Mortgages of land 340
Hot Topic: Undue influence and mortgages 342
15.3 Remedies of the mortgagee 345
15.4 Mortgages of shares 348
15.5 Mortgages of life insurance policies 350
15.6 Goods as a security 351
15.7 Guarantees and indemnities 352
 Contents

15.8 Property covered by a retention of title clause 359

15.9 Liens 361
End of Chapter Summary 362
Questions 363

Business Contracts 365

16 Agency 369
Learning Objectives 369
16.1 Agency and types of agents 369
16.2 Agents' authority 370
16.3 Agents' duties to the principal 373
Hot Topic: Conflicts of interest and Chinese walls 376
16.4 Agents' rights against the principal 378
16.5 Agents' liability to the third party 379
16.6 Termination of agency 380
16. 7 Commercial agents 382
End of Chapter Summary 384
Questions 385

17 Employment contracts 386

Learning Objectives 386
17. 1 Contracts of service and contracts for services 386
Hot Topic: UK opt-out under the Working Time Regulations 1998 390
17 .2 Formation of the contract of employment 390
Hot Topic: Employers' duty to employees 392
17.3 Health and safety at work 394
17 .4 Statutory employment rights 395
Hot Topic: Delay in achieving equal pay: 397
17 .5 Discrimination law and employment 403
17 .6 Unfair dismissal 411
Hot Topic: Damages for wrongful and unfair dismissal at common law 416
17.7 Redundancy 416
17 .8 Transfers of undertakings 417
17. 9 Notice 420
17.10 Sick pay 421
17.11 Restraint of trade clauses 421
17.12 The European dimension 421
End of Chapter Summary 421
Questions 422

18 Sale and supply of goods 423

Learning Objectives 423
18.1 Contracts for the sale of goods 423
18.2 Implied terms in sale of goods contracts 424
18.3 Exclusion of implied terms 430
18.4 Passing of property and risk 431
18.5 Sale by non-owner 435
18.6 Performance of the contract 439
18.7 The unpaid seller's rights against the goods 442
 ••
XII Contents

18.8 Seller's actions for breach of contract 443

18.9 Buyer's actions for breach of contract 444
18.10 Contracts for the supply of goods 445
18.11 Contracts for the supply of services 446
18.12 Goods supplied under HP and conditional sale agreements 447
18.13 Discrimination in respect of services, goods and facilities 448
End of Chapter Summary 449
Questions 449

19 Insurance 451
Learning Objectives 451
19.1 Introduction 451
19.2 Insurable interest 452
19.3 Formalities and the formation of the contract of insurance 455
Hot Topic: Sex discrimination and insurance 456
19.4 Duration, cancellation and renewal 456
19.5 Insurance as a contract of utmost good faith 457
19.6 Content and interpretation of the policy 458
19. 7 Standard terms in policies of insurance 460
Hot Topic: Deep vein thrombosis (dvt) - economy class syndrome 461
19.8 Causation 463
19.9 Life insurance 463
19.10 Liability insurance 465
19.11 Employers' liability insurance 467
Hot Topic: Asbestos-related claims -pleural plaques and the
'worried well' 468
End of Chapter Summary 469
Questions 469

Part VI Consumer Protection 471

20 Consumer credit 475
Learning Objectives 475
20.1 Introduction 4 75
20.2 Agreements within the Act 475
20.3 Regulated consumer credit agreements 477
20.4 Exempt agreements 477
20.5 Partially regulated agreements 4 79
20. 6 Form and contents of the agreement 4 79
Hot Topic: Consequences of non-compliance with formalities 480
20. 7 Cancellation 480
20.8 Dealer as creditor's agent 480
20.9 Matters arising during the currency of credit or hire agreements 481
Hot Topic: Creditors' liability for suppliers' defaults 482
20.10 Duty to give notice before taking certain action 482
20.11 Duty to give information to debtors under fixed-sum credit agreements 482
20.12 Duty to give information to debtors under running-account credit
agmements 483
20.13 Duty to give information to debtors under consumer hire agreements 483
20.14 Misusing credit facilities 483
 •••
Contents XI II

20. 15 Early and late payment by the debtor 484

20.16 Default and non-default notice and regulated agreements 484
20.17 Unfair relationships 486
20. 18 Death of the debtor 486
20.19 HP and other instalment sales 486
20.20 Involvement of a finance company 487
20.21 Liabilities of the parties 487
20.22 Termination of the agreement 488
20.23 The minimum payment clause 489
20.24 The creditor's claim for damages 490
20.25 The powers of the court with regard to regulated agreements 490
20.26 Protection of the private purchaser of a motor vehicle 490
20.27 Conditional sale and credit sale agreements 491
End of Chapter Summary 491
Questions 491

21 Consumer protection 493

Learning Objectives 493
21 .1 Prohibition of unfair commercial practices 493
21 .2 Trade descriptions 503
21 .3 The Trade Descriptions Act (TOA) 1998 506
21 .4 Distance selling 506
21.5 Unsolicited goods and services 508
21 .6 Product liability 509
21 .7 Contracts for unsolicited goods and services 516
21 .8 Cancellable agreements for goods and services 516
21.9 Unfair terms in consumer contracts 517
21 .10 Consumer protection and e-commerce 520
End of Chapter Summary 520
Questions 520

e-commerce 523
22 e-commerce 527
Learning Objectives 527
Hot Topic: e-commerce - the fastest growing commercial market 527
22.1 Electronic contracts 527
Hot Topic: The proper law of the contract 529
Hot Topic: Formality and the requirements of writing 531
22.2 Electronic signatures and encryption 531
22.3 Payment methods and the internet 533
22.4 Domain names 537
Hot Topic: Domain names and trade marks 538
22.5 Copyright and the internet 539
End of Chapter Summary 541
Questions 54 1
Glossary 542
Index 547
 Business Law
The very term 'law' often gives rise to misapprehension and doubt in the minds of non-
lawyers. The law is seen as belonging to a specialist world of jargon and professional
flummery from which they are excluded. This is often accompanied by a feeling that the
law is something in which they become involved at their peril, with its association with
highly paid professionals and large bills.
In effect, this is largely because the involvement of the law is seen as something which
occurs only when something has gone wrong, but otherwise is something which does not
affect us.
In reality, as with any other human activity, the carrying on of a commercial,
professional or business activity needs to be legally regulated for a number of purposes,
including the following:

Regulating the rights and duties of people carrying on a business in common to

ensure that profits and losses are shared equally.
• Protecting persons dealing with the business as clients from harm caused by
defective products or services produced or offered by the business organisation.
• Ensuring that the treatment of employees and workers is fair and non-discriminatory.
• Protecting investors in business to ensure that their rights as creditors or shareholders
are respected.
Regulating the dealings between the business and persons supplying it with goods
and services to afford mutual protection of supplier and customer.
Ensuring the protection of the public from those who have engaged in doubtful
business practices.

The regulation of these and other aspects of the conduct of a commercial or business
activity is ensured by a body of substantive rules of law relating to business, and, in
addition, the establishment of forums to review any alleged breach of the rules ensures
the enforcement of these rules - the aim being to prevent future abuses and to compensate
any injured party.
The most obvious relevant forum is the official court system and the system of specialist
tribunals to which parties can turn for adjudication. There is also the recognition and
regulation of arbitration tribunals and private organisations providing for dispute
resolution, including alternative dispute resolution (ADR) through mediation.
In certain trades and professions, regulation is also ensured by the existence of legally
recognised business associations to which traders can belong and which require their
members to abide by established codes of practice. These trade organisations also operate
tribunals to adjudicate on disputes involving their members .

•
XIV
 Preface

The law and the legal system should be seen in the same way as the rules regulating
various sporting activities: professional football, ice dancing, synchronised swimming.
They are the ever-present background to the activity but are often ignored until some
questionable behaviour is alleged. The' offside rule' may be understood by only a few, but
it is important for everybody.

About this book

This is intended as a comprehensive text for a business law module as part of an
undergraduate law degree. It is also suitable for students on Business Studies degree
programmes and those undertaking courses to obtain professional qualifications such as
those offered by the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators and the various
professional accountancy bodies.
In this new and revised edition, many chapters have been completely rewritten to
reflect major changes in the law. This is most obvious in the chapters on registered
companies (chapters 6 to 12) which incorporate the major changes in company law as a
result of the passing of the Companies Act 2006. The Act comes into force in its entirety
in October 2009, but the chapters are written as if the legislation were already fully
implemented. Another chapter which has been largely rewritten is chapter 21 on
Consumer Protection. The legislation relating to unfair trading practices was completely
reformed in 2008 with the transposition into UK law of the EU Directives aimed at
harmonising the law in this area.
Business law syllabuses vary enormously. Some programmes concentrate on the
organisational and relational aspects of business and deal with partnership and company
law. Others may choose to concentrate on commercial relationships including agency,
employment and consumer contracts. This text covers both of these approaches to the
subject, and also includes a chapter on the rapidly developing field of e-commerce.
Students also vary greatly, and while law students will have knowledge of the general
principles of English law through an earlier course of study, others may be embarking on
legal studies for the first time. This divergence of knowledge is recognised by the inclusion
of an introductory section on the workings of the legal system and English law, including
arbitration and ADR.
In respect of the relevant 'law for business' material, the text is designed as a 'one-stop'
source. The layout is non-linear, in the sense that it is designed so that students can select
from it the topics of specific relevance to their particular course. There is extensive cross-
referencing linking related topics. This allows for reference forward and back for further
and deeper understanding or for revision.
The aim is to cover the widest possible range of business and commercial law topics to
suit the widest possible range of courses and the widest possible range of students.
This is reflected in the contents and presentation of the material:

The language used is as straightforward and as non-technical as possible without

• •
comprom1smg accuracy
Technical legal terms are defined at the outset and there is an extensive glossary of
technical terms
Cases are presented to serve as illustrations for the evolution and application of legal
principles to business and commercial situations
 •
XVI Preface

• End of chapter summaries stress the main points to be retained by the student
• End of chapter questions offer the opportunity of applying the principles covered to
practical business scenarios
• Extensive cross-referencing allows for reference back or forward to related topics for
revision purposes or further development.

A dedicated website supports the book and provides further information on specific
topics as well as suggested answers for the problem questions. This also allows the book
to be regularly updated.

STEVE JUDGE
November 2008
Av. Hoare and other appeals [2008] UKHL 6 116
AG v. Blake [1998] 1 All ER 833 393
A-G v. Edison Telephone Co. (1880) 6 QBD 15
AG for Hong Kong v. Reid [1994] 1 All ER 1 377
A Roberts & Co. Ltd v. Leicestershire County Council [1961] Ch 555 61
AB Trucking and BAW Commercials (3 June 1987) 242
AB v. South West Water Services Ltd [1993] QB 507 128
ADI (UK) Ltd v. Willer [2001] All ER 237 419
AIB Finance Ltd v. Debtors [1997] 4 All ER 677 242,347
Aas v. Benham [1891] 2 Ch 244 172
Abbahall Ltd v. Smee [2003] 1 All ER 465 105
Aberfoyle Plantations Ltd v. Cheng [1960] AC 115 75,252
Abbey Glen Properties Corpn v. Stumborg (1975) 65 DLR (3d) 235 251
Ackman v. Policyholders Protection Board [1992] 2 Lloyd's Rep 321 456
Actionstrength Ltd. v. International Glass Engineering In. GI.En. Spa and ors [2003]
UKHL17 71
Adams v. Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433 149
Adams v. Lindsell (1818) 1 B & Ald 681 50
Adams v. Union Cinemas [1939] 3 All ER 136 420
Adams v. Ursell [1913] 1 Ch 269 105
Addis v. Gramophone Co. Ltd [1909] AC 488 120, 416
Adler v. Dickson [1954] 3 All ER 396 76
Agnew v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue [2001] 2 AC 710 263
Airborne Accessories v. Goodman [1984] 3 All ER 407 361
Airfix Footwear v. Cope [1978] ICR 121 387
Airtours plc v. Shipley (1994) 158 JP 835 499
Alcock and Others v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1991] 3 WLR 1057 96
Ali v. Christian Salvesen Food Services Ltd [1997] 1 All ER 721 73
Allam v. Europa Poster Services [1968] 1 All ER 286 374
Allcard v. Skinner (1887) 36 Ch D 145 65, 129
Allen v. Emerson [1944] KB 362 16
Allen v. Gold Reefs of West Africa Ltd [1900] 1 Ch 656 244
Allen v. Hyatt (1914) 30 TLR 444 244
Allen and Ors v. GMB [2008] EWCA Civ 810 404
Alliance & Leicester Building Society v. Edgestop, Same v. Dhanoa; Same v. Samra;
Mercantile Credit Co Ltd v. Lancaster [1993] 1 WLR 1462 127
Aluminium Industrie Vaassen v. Romalpa Aluminium Ltd [1976] 2 All ER 552 359,360
Amalgamated Investment & Property Co. Ltd v. John Walker & Sons Ltd [1976]
3All ER509 60

••
XVII
 •••
XVIII Table of Cases

American Express Banking Corp. v. Hurley [1985] 3 All ER 564 347

Ammonia Soda Co Ltd v. Chamberlain [1918] 1 Ch 266 202
Anangel Atlas Naviera SA v. Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Co. Ltd [1990]
1 Lloyd's Rep 167 377
Andre et Cie SA v. Ets Michel Blanc et fils [1979] 2 Lloyds Rep 427 61
Andrews v. Ramsay & Co. [1903] 2 KB 635 377
Anglia Television v. Reed [1972] 1 QB 60 120
Annabel's (Berkeley Square) v. G Schoek (t/a Annabel's Escort Agency) [1972] RPC 838 164
Appleby v. Myers (1867) LR 2 CP 651 82
Arab Bank plc v. Mercantile Holdings Ltd and Another [1994] 1 BCLC 33 213
Arbuckle v. Taylor (1815) 3 Dow 160 167
Arbuthnot Leasing International Ltd v. Havelet Leasing Ltd (No. 2) [1990] BCC 636 297
Arcos v. Ronaasen (EA) & Son [1933] AC 470 424
Armagas Ltd v. Mundogas SA [1986] AC 717 195
Armhouse Lee Ltd v. Chappell (1996) The Times, 7 August 66
Armour v. Thyssen Edelstahl Werke AG [1990] 3 All ER 481 360
Arora v. Bradford City Council [1991] 3 All ER 545 128
Artistic Upholstery Ltd v. Art Forma (Furniture) Ltd [1999] 4 All ER 277 89
Ashbury Railway Carriage & Iron Co. Ltd v. Riche (1875) LR 7 HL 653 193
Ashington Piggeries Ltd v. Christopher Hill Ltd (Nordsildmel Third Parties)
[1971] 1 All ER 847 428
Ashmore, Benson, Pease & Co. Ltd v. AW Dawson Ltd [1973] 2 All ER 856 68
Associated Distributors Ltd v. Hall [1938] 2 KB 83 489
Associated Japanese Bank (International) Ltd v. Credit du Nord [1988] 3 All ER 902 354
Astron Clinica Ltd and Ors v. Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade
Marks [2008] EWHC 85 (Pat) 322
Aswan Engineering Establishment v. Lupdine [1987] 1 WLR 1 427
Atari Corporation (UK) Ltd v. Electronics Boutique Store (UK) Ltd [1998] 2 WLR 66 433
Att. Gen. v. Corke [1933] Ch 89 108
Attwood v. Small (1838) 6 Cl & Fin 232 63
Atwood v. Lamont [1920] 3 KB 571 69
Avery v. Bowden (1855) 5 E & B 714 81
Avnet Inc. v. Isoact Limited [1998] FSR 16 538

BCCI SA v. Ali and Others (No. 2) [2002] 3 All ER 750 392

BP Exploration Co. (Libya) Ltd v. Hunt (No. 2) [1983] 2 AVC 352 82
BRDC Ltd v. Hextall Erskine & Co [1997] 1 BCLC 182 254
Babula v. Waltham Forest College [2007] EWCA Civ 174 394
Baden Delvaux et Lecuit v. Societe Generale pour favoriser le developpement du
commerce et de l'industrie en France SA [1983] BCLC 325 215
Badgerhill Properties Ltd v. Cottrell [1991] BCLC 805 192
Bagot v. Stevens Scanlon & Co. Ltd [1966] 1 QB 197 115
Baird Textile Holdings Ltd v. Marks & Spencer plc [2001] EWCA Civ. 274 55
Baker v. James Bros [1921] 2 KB 674 100
Baldry v. Marshall [1925] 1 KB 260 428
Balfour v. Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571 56
Balkis Consolidated Co. v. Tomkinson [1893] AC 396 220
 Table of Cases •
XIX

Balsamo v. Medici [1984] 2 All ER 304 374

Bamford v. Bamford [1970] Ch 212 246
Banco Exterior International SA v. Thomas [1997] 1 All ER 46 343
Bank of Baroda v. Panessar [1986] BCLC 497 274
Bank of Ireland v. Hollicourt (Contracts) Ltd [2001] 1 All ER 289 291
Bank of Montreal v. Stuart [1911] AC 120 354
Bank of Nova Scotia v. Hellenic Mutual War Risks Association (Bermuda) Ltd,
The Good Luck [1991] 2 WLR 1279 459
Bank of Scotland v. Grimes [1985] 1 QB 1179 346
Barber v. Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Group, Case 262 I 88 [1990]
ECR I-1889, [1991] 2 WLR 72 396,398
Barclays Bank Ltd v. Trevanion (1933) XXVII The Banker 98 356
Barclays Bank plc v. Fairclough Building Ltd and Others [1995] 1 All ER 289 122, 127
Barclays Bank plc v. O'Brien [1994] 1 AC 180 341-342
Barker v. Hargreaves [1981] RTR 197 501
Barnett v. Chelsea & Kensington Management Committee [1969] 1 QB 428 97
Barrett v. Enfield LBC [1997] All ER 171 93
Barry v. Davies (t/a Heathcote Ball & Co) [2001] 1 All ER 944 48
Bartlett v. Sydney Marcus [1965] 1 WLR 1013 427
Bass Brewers Ltd v. Appleby and Anor [1997] 2 BCLC 700 168
Beach v. Reed Corrugated Cases Ltd [1956] 2 All ER 652 119
Beard v. London General Omnibus Co. [1900] 2 QB 530 90
Beattie v. E & F Beattie Ltd [1938] Ch 708 187
Beckett v. Cohen [1972] 1 WLR 1593 500
Beckett v. Kingston Bros (Butchers) Ltd [1970] 1 QB 606 501
Bee v. Jenson (No.2) [2007] EWCA Civ 923 123
Belfield v. Bourne [1894] 1 Ch 521 174
Bell Houses Ltd v. City Wall Properties Ltd [1966] 2 QB 656 193
Bell v. Lever Bros [1932] AC 161 60, 251
Belmont Finance Corpn Ltd v. Williams Furniture Ltd [1979] Ch 250 215
Belmont Finance Corpn Ltd v. Williams Furniture Ltd (No. 2) [1980] All ER 393 214
Bence Graphics International Ltd v. Fasson UK Ltd [1997] 1 All ER 979 444
Bentinck Ltd v. Cromwell Engineering Co. [1971] 1 QB 324 489
Bentley v. Craven (1853) 18 Beav 75 171
Bentley-Stevens v. Jones [1974] 2 All ER 653 232
Berkshire County Council v. Olympic Holidays Ltd [1994] Crim LR 277 499
Bermingham v. Sher Brothers, 1980 SLT 122 92
Bernstein v. Pamsons Motors (Golders Green) Ltd [1987] 2 All ER 22 427,429
Bernstein v. Skyviews & General Ltd [1977] 3 All ER 902 86
Bertram, Armstrong & Co. v. Godfrey (1830) 1 Knapp 381 373
Bettini v. Gye (1876) 1 QBD 183 74
Betts v. Brin tel Helicopters Ltd [1997] 2 All ER 840 419
Beverley Acceptance v. Oakley [1982] RTR 417 437
Bigos v. Boustead [1951] 1 All ER 92 67
Bilka-Kaufhaus v. Weber van Hartz, Case 70/82 [1986] ECRI 1607 404
Binstead v. Buck [1777] 2 WBl 1117 372
Bisney v. Swanston [1972] 225 EG 2299 128
Table of Cases

Bisset v. Wilkinson [1927] AC 177 62

Blackmore v. Bellamy [1983] RTR 303 493
Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club Ltd v. Blackpool BC [1993] 3 All ER 25 51
Bliss v. South East Thames Regional Health Authority [1987] ICR 700 416
Bloomenthal v. Ford [1897] AC 156 221
Boardman v. Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46 172,377
Boardman v. Sanderson [1964] 1 WLR 1317 96
Boehringer Ingelheim Ltd and Ors v. Vetplus Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 583 504
Bolkiah v. KPMG (a firm) [1999] 2 WLR 215 376
Bolton v. Mahadeva [1975] QB 326 79
Bolton v. Stone [1951] AC 850 104
Bone v. Seale [1975] 1 All ER 787 105
Borden (UK) Ltd v. Scottish Timber Products Ltd [1979] 3 All ER 961 361
Borland's Trustee v. Steel Bros & Co. Ltd [1907] 1 Ch 279 218
Boston Deep Sea Fishing and Ice Co. v. Ansell (1888) 39 Ch D 339 377
Bowskill v. Dawson (No. 2) [1955] 1 QB 13 465
Brace v. Calder [1895] 2 QB 253 122
Bradford Banking Co. Ltd v. Henry Briggs, Sons & Co. Ltd (1886) 12 App Cas 29 350
Bradley v. Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd [1989] AC 957 466
Brady v. Brady [1988] BCLC 20 214,246
Brasserie du Pecheur SA v. Germany and R v. Secretary of State for Transport
ex parte Factortame Ltd (No. 3), Cases C-46 and 48/93 [1990] ECR I-03905 20
Bratton Seymour Service Co. Ltd v. Oxborough [1992] BCLC 693 187
Braymist Ltd v. Wise Finance Co. Ltd [2001] EGCS 35 192
Bridge v. Campbell Discount Co. Ltd [1962] AC 600 123,489
Bridlington Relay Ltd v. Yorkshire Electricity Board [1965] 1 All ER 264 106
Brikom Investments Ltd v. Carr [1979] QB 467 63
Brinkibon Ltd v. Stahag Stahl [1983] AC 34 50
British Airways Board v. Taylor [1976] 1 All ER 65 500
British Celanese v. AH Hunt (Capacitors) Ltd [1969] 2 All ER 1252 108
British Homes Assurance Corpn Ltd v. Patterson [1902] 2 Ch 404 167
British Telecommunications and Others v. One in a Million and Others [1999]
4All ER476 539
British Transport Commission v. Gourley [1956] AC 185 119
Britton v. The Commissioners of Customs & Excise [1986] VATTR 204 160, 161
Brooks v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2005] 1 WLR 1495 93
Bull v. Pitney-Bowes Ltd [1966] 3 All ER 384 69
Bunge Corp., N. York v. Tradax Export S. A. Panama [1981] 1 WLR 711 74
Bunker v. Charles Brand & Son Ltd [1969] 2 All ER 59 102
Burlo v. Langley and Anor [2006] EWCA Civ 1778 415
Burnard v. Haggis (1863) 14 CBNS 45 73
Burton v. Gray (1873) 8 Ch App 932 353
Bushell v. Faith [1970] AC 1099 155, 189,240
Business Computers Ltd v. Anglo-African Leasing Limited [1977] 1 WLR 578 276
Butler Machine Tool Co. Ltd v. Ex-Cell-O Corp. (England) Ltd [1979] 1 WLR 401 49
Butterworth v. Kingsway Motors [1954] 1 WLR 1286 424
Byrne and Another v. Hall Pain & Foster (a firm) and Ors [1999] 2 All ER 400 116
 Table of Cases •
XXI

Byrne v. Motor Insurers' Bureau and Anor [2007] EWHC 1268 (QB) 21
Byrne v. Van Tienhoven (1880) 5 CPD 344 49,50

C & P Haulage v. Middleton [1983] 3 All ER 94 120

CCC Films v. Impact Quadrant Films [1984] 3 All ER 298 120
CIBC Mortgages plc v. Pitt [1993] 4 All ER 433 341
C.M. Robins & Ors v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Case C-278 I 05
[2007] EUECJ C-278 / 05 273
CTN Cash and Carry Ltd v. Gallaher Ltd [1994] 4 All ER 714 64
C v. D (London Arbitration Clauses) [2007] EWCA Civ 1282 38
Cachia v. Faluyi [2001] EWCA Civ 998 90
Calico Printers' Association Ltd v. Barclays Bank (1931) 145 LT 51 374
Campbell v. Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2004] 2 AC 457 23
Cambridge Water Co. v. Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 1 All ER 53 108, 110
Campbell v. Paddington Corporation [1911] 1 KB 869 103
Canadian Aero Service Ltd v. O'Malley (1973) 40 DLR (3d) 371 249
Cane v. Jones [1980] 1 WLR 1451 184
Canning v. Farquhar (1886) 16 QBD 727 455
Cannon v. Hartley [1949] Ch 213 130
Caparo Industries plc v. Dickman [1990] 1 All ER 568 94
Capital Finance Co. Ltd v. Bray [1964] 1 WLR 323 489
Capital and Counties plc v. Hants CC [1997] 2 All ER 865 93
Capper Pass v. Lawton [1977] QB 852 397
Carlill v. Carbolic Smokeball Co. [1893] 1 QB 256 48,50
Carlisle and Cumberland Banking Co. v. Bragg [1911] 1 KB 489 353
Carlogie SS Co. Ltd v. The Royal Norwegian Government [1952] AC 292 125
Carlos Federspiel & Co. v. Charles Twigg & Co. [1957] 1 Lloyd's Rep 240 434
Carmichael v. Evans [1904] 1 Ch 486 173
Carney v. Herbert [1985] AC 301 213
Cassell & Co. Ltd v. Broome [1972] 1 All ER 808 128
Castle v. St Augustine's Links (1922) 38 TLR 615 104
Catamaran Cruisers Ltd v. Williams [1994] IRLR 501 387
Cattley and Anor. v. Pollard and Anor [2006] EWHC Ch 3130 118
Cellulose Acetate Silk Co. Ltd v. Widnes Foundry Ltd [1933] AC 20 123
Celtec Ltd v. Astley [2001] All ER 66 418
Central London Property Trust Ltd v. High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130 130
Centros Ltd v. Erhvervs- og Selskabssfyrelsen, Case C-212/97 [1999] ECR I-1459 183
Chadwick v. British Transport Commission [1967] 2 All ER 945 97
Champagne Perrier-Janet SA v. HH Finch Ltd [1982] 3 All ER 713 220,227
Chandler v. Webster [1904] 1 KB 904 82
Chapelton v. Barry UDC [1940] 1 KB 532 75
Chaplin v. Hicks [1910] 2 KB 486 119
Chaplin v. Leslie Frewin (Publishers) Ltd [1966] Ch 71 72
Chappell & Co. Ltd v. Nestle Co. Ltd [1960] AC 87 52
Chaproniere v. Mason (1905) 21 TLR 633 95,509
Charles Forte Investments Ltd v. Amanda [1963] 2 All ER 940 156,226
Charles Rickards Ltd v. Oppenheim [1950] 1 KB 611 75,429
 ••
XXII Table of Cases

Charter v. Sullivan [1957] 2 QB 117 118

Chaudhry v. Prabhakar [1989] 1 WLR 29 374
Chiron Corporation v. Murex Diagnostics Ltd [1995] All ER (EC) 88 19
Christie v. Davey [1893] 1 Ch 316 104
Christie, Owen & Davies Ltd v. Stockton [1953] 2 All ER 1149 378
Christie, Owen & Davies Ltd v. Rapacioli [1974] 2 All ER 311 378
Churchill and anor. v. First Independent Factors & Finance Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1623 147
Cityland and Property (Holdings) Ltd v. Dabrah [1968] Ch 166 344
Clark v. Associated Newspapers Ltd [1998] 1 All ER 959 333
Clarke v. Dunraven, The Satanita [1897] AC 59 51
Clayton's Case (1816) 1 Mer. 572 357
Clea Shipping Corpn v. Bulk Oil International Ltd, The Alaskan Trader (No. 2)
[1984] 1 All ER 129 81
Cleather v. Twisden (1884) 28 Ch D 340 167-168
Clemens v. Clemens Bros Ltd [1976] 2 All ER 268 186,232
Clements v. L & NW Ry Co. [1894] 2 QB 482 72
Clifton v. Palumbo [1944] 2 All ER 497 48
Clive Sweeting v. Northern Upholstery Ltd (1982) 2 TrL 5 496
Clough Mill Ltd v. Martin [1984] 3 All ER 982 359
Coates v. Rawtenstall BC [1937] 3 All ER 602 101
Cohen v. Nessdale Ltd [1982] 2 All ER 97 50
Colchester Estates (Cardiff) Ltd v. Carlton Industries plc [1984] 2 All ER 601 12
Coleman v. Attridge Law & Steve Law, Case C-303 I 06 [2008] EUECJ C-303 I 66 408
Coleman v. Myers [1997] 2 NZLR 225 245
Coles v. Enoch [1939] 3 All ER 327 378
Collingwood v. Home and Colonial Stores Ltd [1936] 3 All ER 200 110
Collins v. Godefroy (1831) 1 B & Ad 950 52
Coltman v. Bibby Tankers Ltd [1968] AC 276 14
Combe v. Combe [1951] 1 All ER 767 55
Comet Group plc v. British Sky Broadcasting [1991] TLR 211 381
Commercial Plastics Ltd v. Vincent [1965] 1 QB 623 68
Compagnie de Commerce et Commission SARL v. Parkinson Stove Co. Ltd [1953]
2 Lloyd's Rep 487 50
Compaq Computers Ltd v. Abercorn Group Ltd [1991] BCC 484 360,361
Computer and Systems Engineering plc v. John Lelliott Ltd (1991) The Times,
21 February 77
Condor v. The Barron Knights Ltd [1966] 1 WLR 87 81
Conn v. Westminster Motor Insurance Association Ltd [1966] 1 Lloyd's Rep 407 458
Conlon and Anor v. Simms [2006] EWCA Civ 1749 171
Cook v. Broderip (1968) 112 SJ 193 102
Cook v. Deeks [1916] 1 AC 554 249,250
Cooper v. National Provincial Bank Ltd [1945] 2 All ER 641 353
Cooperative Insurance Society Ltd v. Argyll Stores (Holdings) Ltd [1997] 3 All ER 297 130
Copland v. UK [2007] ECHR 253 22
Cornwal v. Wilson (1750) 1 Ves Sen 509 371
Corpe v. Overton (1833) 10 Bing 252 72, 162
Corr v. IBC Vehicles Ltd [2008] UKHL 13 126
 •••
Table of Cases XXIII

Costa v. ENEL, Case 6 / 64 [1964] ECR 585 19

Cotman v. Brougham [1918] AC 514 193
Cotronic (UK) Ltd v. Dezonie [1991] BCLC 721 192
Countryside Alliance and Ors v. Attorney-General and Anor [2007] UKHL 52 23
Countrywide Assured Financial Services Ltd v. (1) Smart (2) Pollard, 2004
ChD7May 69
Coupe v. Guyett [1973] 2 All ER 1058 502
Cousins v. Sun Life Assurance Society [1933] Ch 126 465
Coutts & Co. v. Browne-Lecky [1947] KB 104 72
Coward v. Motor Insurers' Bureau [1963] 1 QB 259 56
Cowburn v. Focus Television Rentals Ltd [1983] Crim. LR 563 500
Cox v. Coulson [1916] 2 KB 177 162
Cox v. Hickman (1860) 8 HL Cas 268 160
Craven-Ellis v. Canons Ltd [1936] 2 KB 403 132
Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland NV v. Burch [1997] 1 All ER 144 343
Crine v. Barclay's Bank, Byblos Bank v. Al-Khudhainy [1987] BCLC 32 274
Cripps (Pharmaceuticals) Ltd v. Wickenden [1973] 1 WLR 944 274
Croft v. Day (1847) 7 Beav 84 164
Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co Ltd v. Veitch [1942] AC 435 112
Crowhurst v. Amersham Burial Board (1878) 4 Ex D 5 108
Crowther v. Shannon [1975] 1 WLR 30 427
Cuckmere Brick Co. Ltd v. Mutual Finance Ltd [1971] 2 All ER 633 346
Cumbrian Newspapers Group Ltd v. Cumberland & Westmorland Herald Newspaper
& Printing Co. Ltd [1986] BCLC 286 186, 189, 225
Cunard v. Antifyre Ltd [1953] 1 KB 551 106
Cundy v. Lindsay (1878) 3 App Cas 459 59
Curtis v. Chemical Cleaning & Dyeing Co. [1951] 1 KB 805 62, 75
Cutler v. United Dairies (London) Ltd [1933] 2 KB 297 99

D & C Builders Ltd v. Rees [1966] 2 QB 617 80

DHN Food Distributors Ltd v. Tower Hamlets LBC [1976] 1 WLR 852 150
DPP v. Kent and Sussex Contractors Ltd [1944] KB 146 151
DSG Retail Ltd v. Oxfordshire CC [2001] 1 WLR 1765 499
Daimler Co. Ltd v. Continental Tyre and Rubber Co. (Great Britain) Ltd [1916]
2AC 307 66, 150-151
Dalby v. India and London Life Assurance Co. (1854) 15 CB 365 452
Daniels v. White (1968) 160 LT 128 509
Dann v. Curzon (1911) 104 LT 66 66
Dann v. Hamilton [1939] 1 All ER 59 100
Daulia Ltd v. Four Millbank Nominees Ltd [1978] Ch 231 52
Davies v. Liverpool Corporation [1949] 2 All ER 175 126
Davies v. Sumner [1984] 1 WLR 1301 81, 493
Davis Contractors Ltd v. Fareham UDC [1956] AC 696 81
Daw v. Intel Corporation UK Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 70 98
Dawsons International plc v. Coats Patons plc (1988) 4 BCC 305 245
Dawsons Ltd v. Bonin [1922] 2 AC 413 D 459
Deep Vein Thrombosis and Air Travel Group Litigation [2005] UKHL 72 461
 •
XXIV Table of Cases

De Hahn v. Hartley (1786) 1 TR 343 458

De Keyser's Royal Hotel Ltd v. Spicer Brothers Ltd (1914) 30 TLR 257 131
Delaware Mansions Ltd v. Westminster City Council [2001] 3 WLR 1007 106
Demby Hamilton & Co. Ltd v. Barden (Endeavour Wines Ltd Third Party) [1949]
1 All ER435 431
Denmark Productions Ltd v. Boscobel Productions Ltd [1969] 1 QB 699 72
Dennant v. Skinner and Collom [1948] 2 KB 164 432
Derbyshire and Ors v. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council [2007] UKHL 16 405
Derry v. Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337 63
Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Group plc v. IRC [2006] UKHL 49 61
Dickinson v. Dodds (1876) 2 Ch D 463 49
Dietman v. London Borough of Brent [1988] IRLR 228 420
Dillon v. Baltic Shipping Co. (The Mikhail Lermontov) [1991] 2 Lloyd's Rep 155 76
Dimond v. Lovell [1999] 3 All ER 1 480
Dimbula Valley (Ceylon) Tea Co Ltd v. Laurie [1961] Ch 353 202
Dimskal Shipping Co. SA v. International Transport Workers Federation
(The Evia Luck) [1992] 2 AC 152 64
Dixon v. BBC [1979] QB 546 413
Dobson v. General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corp. plc [1990] 1 QB 274 462
Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 562 92,509
Dorchester Finance Co. Ltd v. Stebbing [1989] BCLC 498 248
Downsview Nominees Ltd v. First City Corpn Ltd [1993] AC 295 347
Doyle v. Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd [1969] 2 QB 158 125
Doyle v. White City Stadium Ltd [1935] 1 KB 110 72
Dr Sophie Redmond Stichting v. Bartol, Case C-29 /91 [1992] ECR I- 3189 418
Drew v. Nunn (1879) 4 QBD 661 381
Drewery and Drewery v. Ware Lane [1960] 3 All ER 529 378
Drinkwater v. Kimber [1952] 2 QB 281 91
Du Jardin v. Beadman Brothers [1952] 2 All ER 160 437
Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v. Salaam and Others [2003] 1 All ER 97 167
Dungate v. Lee [1967] 1 All ER 241 164
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd v. New Garage Ltd [1915] AC 847 122
Dunnachie v. Kingston upon Hull City Council [2004] UKHL 36 416
Dunnett v. Railtrack plc [2002] EWCA Civ 302 40
Dunton v. Dover District Council (1977) 76 LGR 87 105
Dyster v. Randall & Sons [1926] Ch 932 380

E & S Ruben Ltd v. Faire Bros & Co. Ltd [1949] 1 All ER 215 429
ECM (Vehicle Delivery Service) Ltd v. Cox [1999] 4 All ER 669 419
EH Humphries (Norton) Ltd and Thistle Hotels Ltd v. Fix Alarm Fabrication
Services and ors [2006] EWCA Civ 1496 93
EIC Services Ltd and anor v. Phipps and ors [2003] 3 All ER 804 197
Easson v. L. & N. E. Ry. Co. [1944] KB 421 96
Eastern Distributors v. Goldring [1957] 2 QB 600 436
Eastwood v. Magnox Electric plc [2004] UKHL 35 416
Ebrahimi v. Westbourne Galleries Ltd [1973] AC 360 155, 188,230,231,232
Edgington v. Fitzmaurice (1885) 29 Ch D 459 61, 62
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
it came to his knowledge, and then, on the 6th of March, 1897,
went back over the record of his complaints and summed them
up, as follows: "It will be convenient if I recapitulate
briefly the occasions for such complaint, beginning with the
cases relating to Article IV. of the Convention. …

"1.—Netherlands Treaty.
On the 9th November 1895, an Extradition Treaty between the
South African Republic and the Netherlands was signed at the
Hague, and the ratifications were exchanged on the 19th June
last, without the Treaty being submitted for the approval of
Her Majesty. The case was therefore one of a clear infraction
of the Convention, inasmuch as the Treaty had not been
submitted to Her Majesty's Government on its completion, and
had been concluded by the exchange of ratifications without
obtaining the previous approval of the Queen. The Government
of the South African Republic, on their attention being called
to the infraction, did not deny that there had been a
departure from the general practice, but urged that they had
made no publication of the Treaty in anticipation of the
approval of Her Majesty. The Treaty had, however, been
published in the 'Netherlands Gazette' of the 3rd July, and I
observed that when the Treaty was published in the 'Staats
Courant' of the South African Republic after Her Majesty's
approval had been given, the official notice merely stated
that the Treaty was signed and ratified on certain dates, no
reference being made to that approval.

"2.-The Accession of the South African Republic to the

Geneva Convention.
After Dr. Jameson's raid, owing to a report made by the St.
John's Ambulance Association, Her Majesty's Government
determined to invite the South African Republic to accede to
the Geneva Convention, and the necessary instructions were
sent to Sir J. de Wet, who, however, omitted to carry them
out. The South African Republic, on the 30th September,
formally communicated to the Swiss Government, through their
Representative at the Hague, their act of accession to the
Geneva Convention. Her Majesty's Government, in the
circumstances, did not hesitate to convey the Queen's
approval, but the action of the Government of the Republic
none the less constituted a breach of the London Convention.

"3.—Portuguese Treaty.
An Extradition Treaty between the South African Republic and
Portugal was signed on the 3rd November 1893, but, contrary to
the usual practice, has not yet been submitted for the Queen's
approval, although two years have elapsed since Lord Ripon, in
his Despatch of the 25th February 1895, requested your
predecessor to call the attention of the President to the
omission to communicate this Convention to Her Majesty's
Government under the provisions of Article IV. of the London
Convention. … I now pass to the consideration of some of the
recent legislation of the Volksraad in its relation to Article
XIV. It will be found that it involves in more than one case
actual or possible breaches of the Convention. Article XIV.
runs as follows:—'All persons, other than natives, conforming
themselves to the laws of the South African Republic
(a) will have full liberty, with their families, to enter,
travel, or reside in any part of the South African
Republic;
(b) they will be entitled to hire or possess houses,
manufactories, warehouses, shops, and premises;
(c) they may carry on their commerce either in person or by
any agents whom they may think fit to employ;
(d) they will not be subject, in respect of their persons
or property, or in respect of their commerce or industry,
to any taxes, whether general or local, other than those
which are or may be imposed upon citizens of the said
Republic.'

"4.—The Aliens Immigration Law.

This law imposes upon aliens conditions of a new and
burthensome character in excess of the simple requirement that
 they must conform themselves to the laws of the Republic. … 2.
The Aliens Expulsion Law. This law empowers the President,
with the advice and consent of the Executive Council, after
consulting the State Attorney, to expel, without an appeal to
the Court, any foreigner who, by word or writing, excites to
disobedience or transgression of the law, or takes any steps
dangerous to public peace and order. … Her Majesty's
Government … do not admit that the Government of the Republic
have a right to expel foreigners who are not shown to have
failed to conform to the laws of the Republic, and they
reserve the right to object to proceedings under the Act which
may amount to a breach of the Convention.
{473}
3. The Press Law. This law empowers the State President, on
the advice and with the consent of the Executive, to prohibit
entirely or for a time the circulation of printed or published
matter the contents of which are, in his judgment, contrary to
good morals or a danger to the peace and order in the
Republic. The suppression of the 'Critic' newspaper, the
property of a British subject, under this law, is a matter
which may raise a serious question as to whether the action of
the Government of the Republic has been consistent with the
Convention, but as Her Majesty's Government have not yet
received the explanation of the Government of the Republic in
that case, it is only necessary for me to make a passing
allusion to it in this Despatch.

"In several of the cases above cited, the strict letter of the
Convention could apparently have been observed without any
difficulty, while in others the objects which the Government
of the South African Republic had in view could have been
attained without any infringement of the Convention by a
previous understanding with Her Majesty's Government. Her
Majesty's Government therefore cannot conceal from themselves
that the Government of the South African Republic have in
these cases failed to give effect in practice to the
intention, so frequently expressed in public and official
utterances, of upholding the Convention on the part of the
Republic, and of maintaining that good understanding with Her
Majesty's Government which is so necessary in the interests of
South Africa."

Of the laws complained of by Mr. Chamberlain, that relating to

immigrant aliens had raised the most protest, because of its
requirement that all such aliens who were permitted to enter
and remain in the country must carry "travelling and
residential passes," to be shown on demand. The Transvaal
Government had met Mr. Chamberlain's first remonstrance on
this subject, in January, by saying: "It is an evident fact
that, especially during the last time, the immigration of
aliens of the lowest class and without any means of
subsistence has been increasing in a disquieting manner. These
persons are dangerous to the peace of the inhabitants and of
the State itself, and, in the opinion of this Government, no
country whatever can be obliged to admit such undesirable
persons. The regulation of unrestricted entry, as it at
present takes place, is thus, from the point of view of police
requirement, not only necessary but also entirely justified
and constitutes no infringement of Article 14 of the
Convention. This Government does not desire as yet to express
any opinion on the suggestion that under the circumstances
mentioned it should have approached Her Britannic Majesty's
Government with a view to arriving at an understanding. In
case, however, the Government of Her Britannic Majesty has
another practical measure to propose whereby its
above-mentioned subjects, whose presence here is not desired
for the reasons stated, can be prevented from seeking an
outlet on the soil of the South African Republic, and that
measure can be found to be applicable to the subjects of other
Powers as well (since the law makes no distinction in that
respect) it will be ready, with gratitude, to give its full
consideration to such measure."

Great Britain, Papers by Command: 1897, C. 8423.

SOUTH AFRICA: Cape Colony and Natal: A. D. 1897.
Conference of colonial premiers with
the British Colonial] Secretary.

See (in this volume)

ENGLAND: A. D. 1897 (JUNE-JULY).

SOUTH AFRICA: British South Africa Company: A. D. 1897 (January).

Compulsory labor in Rhodesia.

In January, 1897, the Deputy Commissioner of the British

government in Rhodesia made a report to the High Commissioner
on several subjects pertaining to the native administration of
the British South Africa Company which he had been instructed to
investigate. One question to be answered was "whether there
exists a law or practice whereby compulsory labor is exacted
from natives, either by the government of the British South
Africa Company, or by private persons with consent of the
government, or by both?" From his lengthy report on this
subject the High Commissioner deduced the following summary of
conclusions, which he communicated to the colonial secretary:

"(1.) That compulsory labour did undoubtedly exist in

Matabeleland, if not in Mashonaland.

(2.) That labour was procured by the various Native

Commissioners for the various requirements of the Government,
mining companies, and private persons.

(3.) That the Native Commissioners, in the first instance,

endeavoured to obtain labour through the indunas, but, failing
in this, they procured it by force."

Great Britain,
Papers by Command: 1897, C.—8547.
SOUTH AFRICA: The Transvaal: A. D. 1897 (January-March).
Conflict of the Judiciary with the Executive and the Volksraad.
The case of R. E. Brown.

In January, 1897, a decision was rendered by the High Court of

the Republic which brought it into conflict with President
Kruger and the Volksraad. This decision was given in
connection with a suit brought against the government of the
South African Republic by an American engineer, Mr. R. E.
Brown, and the claim of Mr. Brown had arisen out of
circumstances which were subsequently related by a speaker in
the United States Senate, as follows: Mr. R. E. Brown, a young
American mining engineer, living and operating in the Cœur
d'Alene district, in the State of Idaho, about eight years
ago, at the invitation of English capitalists, left this
country to go to the South African Republic for the purpose of
assisting in the development of the gold mines of that
country. It was about that time that Hammond, Clements, and
other American engineers went there, and it is not too much to
say that the genius and the energy of those young Americans
more than anything else made that country a great gold
producer and its mines the most valuable of any in the world.
At that time most of the mines were held by English companies
or Germans. The laws were very simple, but in some respects
appear to have been drawn in the interest of the wealthy
syndicates. Upon the discovery of new mines the President of
the Republic by proclamation opened them to mining locations,
fixing a day and hour at which they would be opened to such
location. Thereafter persons desiring to stake out mines had
to go to the office of the responsible clerk of the district
in which the mines were located to make application for
licenses to locate the mines, and thereafter they were
authorized, either in person or by deputy, to go on the ground
and make mining locations.
{474}
Under this system most of the valuable mines of the country
had been absorbed, as I said, by English and German
syndicates. The mode in which they operated to absorb the
mines was to place their men upon the newly opened ground and
at the earliest possible moment apply for licenses to locate
the mines, and then by means of couriers with swift horses, or
by signals from mountain to mountain where that was possible, to
convey information to their men and cause the mines to be
located before their rivals could get on the ground. Mr. Brown
had not been in the country very long before he learned of this
antiquated system, and he determined on the next opening of
mines to apply to their location some of the snap and go of
American methods.

"In June, 1895, President Kruger by proclamation opened the

mines on the Witfontein farm, district of Potchefstroom, the
responsible clerk for which resided at Doornkop, in that
district. Mr. Brown determined that he would acquire some of
these mines, at least, and as large a number of them as
possible. Witfontein was only 30 miles from Doornkop. The
mines were known to be very valuable, because they had been
prospected on each side and it was found that valuable
gold-bearing reefs ran through them from end to end.
Accordingly he purchased heliographic instruments and employed
expert heliographic operators, and without the knowledge of his
rivals established heliographic communication between Doornkop
and Witfontein. Then he placed his men upon the ground, and on
the 19th day of July, 1895, the earliest period at which he
was permitted to do so, he appeared at the office of the
responsible clerk and sought licenses to locate 1,200 mines
upon this ground. However, on the day before the opening of
the mines his rivals had found out about the heliographic
communication, but they were beaten in the race. In that
extremity they communicated with President Kruger by wire and
induced him on the night of the 18th to issue a second
proclamation, withdrawing the mines of Witfontein from the
privilege of mining locations, and when Mr. Brown appeared at
the office of the responsible clerk and tendered his money he
was met with the information of this action on the part of the
President of the South African Republic, and his application
was refused. But nothing daunted he caused his agents on the
ground to locate the mines the same as if the licenses had
been granted to him, and then he brought suit before the high
court of justice of the South African Republic against the
Republic, alleging the facts substantially as I have stated
them and praying that the authorities be compelled to issue to
him licenses for the mines located, or in lieu thereof that
compensation be made to him in the sum of £372,400, amounting
to about $1,850,000. While this suit was pending it was sought
to re-enforce the action of the President in withdrawing these
lands, and the Volksraad [passed a resolution approving the
withdrawal and declaring that no person should be entitled to
compensation on account of it]."

United States Congressional Record,

January 21, 1901, page 1370.

On Mr. Brown's suit, the High Court of the Republic decided

that the claimant's right to the land was good, and could not
be set aside by ex post facto measures of the Executive or the
Legislature. The President and the Volksraad refused to submit to
this decision, and passed a law to overrule it, on the ground
that, under the Grondwet (constitution), the Volksraad is the
highest power in the state. In a subsequent public statement
of the matter, Justice Kotze, the Chief Justice, explained the
issue that was thus raised between his court and the
President, and also related the circumstances of a compromise
by which it was settled temporarily, as follows:

"This so-called Law Number 1 of 1897 seeks to deprive the

judges of the testing right, authorizes the President to put a
certain question to the members of the bench that they would
not arrogate to themselves the so-called testing power, and
empowers him to instantly dismiss the judge or judges from
whom he receives no answer, or, in his opinion, an
unsatisfactory answer. The judges for the future are also
subjected to a humiliating form of oath. This measure, it
seems almost superfluous to observe, is no law. It alters the
constitution of the country without any previous reference to
the people, and for the reasons given in the Brown case it is
devoid of all legal validity. The five judges, on March 1,
1897, unanimously issued a declaration, stating that by this
so-called Law Number 1 of 1897 a vital violation of the
independence of the bench had taken place, and that the judges
were exposed in future to the suspicion of bribery. In fact,
the nature and tendency of this measure are so immoral that
one of the judges openly said that no honorable man can occupy
a seat on the bench while Law Number 1 of 1897 remains on the
statute book.

"The question above referred to was duly put by the President

to the judges, who had unanimously signed a letter to the
effect that they did not feel themselves at liberty to give
any answer, when the chief justice of the Cape Colony arrived
in Pretoria, and through his mediation a written understanding
was proposed by the judges on March 19, and accepted without
any qualification by the President on March 22, 1897. By the
terms of this compact the judges undertook not to test laws
and resolutions of the Volksraad on the distinct understanding
that the President would as soon as possible submit a draft
Grondwet to the Volksraad providing how alone the Grondwet can
be altered by special legislation in a manner analogous to the
provisions contained in the constitution of the Orange Free
State on the subject, and incorporating the guaranties for the
independence of the judiciary. By these means the judges
intended to protect both the constitution and the bench
against sudden surprises and attacks, such as, for instance,
the oft-quoted measure known as Law Number 1, of 1897. They
did this to avert a crisis, and, in order to help the
Government and Volksraad out of a difficulty of their own
creation, placed themselves under a temporary obligation upon
the faith of the President as speedily as possible complying
with his portion of the understanding."
 United States, 56th Congress, 1st Session,
House Document Number 618.

The promised amendment of the Grondwet was not made, and the
issue concerning it was brought to a crisis in the next year.

See below: A. D. 1898 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).

SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1897 (February):

Appointment of Sir Alfred Milner.

In February, Sir Alfred Milner was appointed High Commissioner

for South Africa and Governor of Cape Colony, to succeed Sir
Hercules Robinson, retired, and raised to the peerage as Lord
Rosmead.

{475}

SOUTH AFRICA: The Transvaal: A. D. 1897 (February).

The franchise.

The government of the Transvaal extended the full franchise to

862 Uitlanders who supported it at the time of the Jameson
raid.

SOUTH AFRICA: The Transvaal: A. D. 1897 (February.)

Indemnity claimed by the South African Republic for
the Jameson Raid.

On the 16th of February, 1877, the State Secretary of the

South African Republic, Dr. W. J. Leyds, presented to the
British High Commissioner the following "specification of the
compensation to which the Government of the South African
Republic lays claim for and in connexion with the incursion
into the Territory of the South African Republic by Dr.
Jameson and the Troops of the Chartered Company at the end of
December 1895 and the beginning of January 1896.

1. Expenditure for military and commando

services In connexion with the incursion,
the sum of. £136,733 s.4 d.3

2. Compensation to the Netherlands South

African Railway Company for making use,
in accordance with the concession granted
to that Company, of the railway worked by
it during the commando on account of the
incursion of Dr. Jameson. £9,500 s.0 d.0

3. Disbursements to surviving relatives

of slain and wounded. £234 s.19 d.6

4. For annuities, pensions, and disbursements

to widows and children of slain burghers and
to relatives of unmarried slain burghers, as
also to wounded burghers, a total sum of. £28,243 s.0 d.0

5. Expenses of the telegraph department,

for more overtime, more telegrams on service
in South African communication, more
cablegrams, &c. £4,692 s.11 d.9

6. Hospital expenses for the care of the

wounded and sick men, &c. of Dr. Jameson. £225 s.0 d.0

7. For support of members of the families of

commandeered burghers during the commando. £177 s.8 d.8

8. Compensation to be paid to the and the

commandeered burghers for their services
troubles and cares brought upon them. £62,120 s.0 d.0

9. Account of expenses of the Orange

 Free State. £36,011 s.19 d.1

Total £677,936 s.3 d.3

"Moral or intellectual compensation to which the Government of

the South African Republic lays claim for and in connexion
with the incursion into the Territory of the South African
Republic by Dr. Jameson and the Troops of the Chartered
Company at the end of December 1895 and the beginning of
January 1896. One million pounds sterling (£1,000,000)."

To this claim the British colonial secretary, Mr. Chamberlain,

replied on the 10th of April, saying, with reference to the
specification under the second head, "for moral or
intellectual damage," that "Her Majesty's Government … regret
that they do not feel justified in presenting it to the
British South Africa Company"; and adding: "Her Majesty's
Government fear that they may be compelled to take similar
exception to certain of the items composing the first head,
especially in view of the very short period which elapsed
between the crossing of the frontier by Dr. Jameson's force
and its surrender; but as it is apparent from the nature of
the figures that the Government of the South African Republic
have proceeded on very precise data in arriving at the various
sums to which they lay claim, Her Majesty's Government, before
offering any observations on this part of the claim, would ask
his Honour to be so good as to furnish them with full
particulars of the way in which the different items comprised
in the first head have been arrived at."

Great Britain,
Papers by Command: C.—8404, 1897; and C.—8721, 1898.

SOUTH AFRICA: The Transvaal: A. D. 1897 (February-July).

British parliamentary investigation of the Jameson Raid.

A Committee of the British House of Commons, appointed "to

inquire into the origin and circumstances of the incursion
into the South African Republic by an armed force, and into
the administration of the British South Africa Company," began
its sittings on the 16th of February, 1897. Among the members
of the Committee were the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the
Attorney-General, Mr. Chamberlain, the Secretary of State for
the Colonies, Sir William Harcourt, Sir John Lubbock, Sir H.
Campbell-Bannerman, Mr. Labouchere, Mr. John Ellis, Mr.
Buxton, Mr. Blake, and others. Mr. Rhodes, who was first
examined by the Committee, read a statement of the
circumstances leading up to the raid, in which he said that,
as one largely interested in the Transvaal, he felt that the
unfriendly attitude of the Boer Government was the great
obstacle to common action among the various states in South
Africa, and that, therefore, he had assisted the movement in
Johannesburg with his purse and influence. "Further," he said,
"acting within my rights, in the autumn of 1895 I placed a
body of troops under Dr. Jameson, prepared to act in the
Transvaal in certain eventualities." Subsequently Mr. Rhodes
declared: "With reference to the Jameson raid, I may state
that Dr. Jameson went in without my authority." He concluded
his statement by declaring that in what he did he was greatly
influenced by his belief that the policy of the Boer
Government was to "introduce the influence of another foreign
Power into the already complicated system of South Africa."
Mr. Rhodes was kept under examination before the Committee for
four days, and then "almost the next thing heard of him was
that he had started for South Africa on his way back to
Rhodesia." Another witness examined was Sir Graham Bower,
Secretary to the High Commissioner at the Cape. "His evidence
was certainly most startling, and at the same time of great
importance. He stated that late in October, 1895, Mr. Rhodes
came into his office and said: 'I want you to give me your
word of honour that you will not say a word to anyone about
what I am going to tell you.' Sir Graham Bower—who, as he
said, had a great many Cape secrets in his possession—pledged
his word, and soon found he was in possession of a secret
 which it was his official duty to disclose to the High
Commissioner and his private duty not to disclose. Mr. Rhodes
then said that he was negotiating about the Protectorate, that
there was going to be a rising in Johannesburg, and that he
wished to have a police force on the border. He added in
substance: 'If trouble comes I am not going to sit still. You
fellows are infernally slow.' It further transpired that on
the fateful Sunday (December 28) Mr. Rhodes had told him that
Jameson had gone in, but that he hoped that the message he had
sent would stop him."
{476}
When Dr. Jameson was examined he fully acknowledged his
conspiracy with the Johannesburg revolutionists, and stated
that he had given information of it to Mr. Rhodes, adding; "He
agreed, and we arranged that when the rising took place he
should go to Johannesburg or Pretoria with the High
Commissioner and Mr. Hofmeyr to mediate between the Transvaal
Government and the Uitlanders. With these matters settled, I
left Cape Town and joined my camp at Pitsani. I required no
orders or authority from Mr. Rhodes, and desired neither to
receive nor to send any messages from or to Cape Town."

In the course of the inquiry, Mr. Chamberlain, the Colonial

Secretary, desired to give testimony, and related that Dr.
Harris, the Secretary in South Africa to the British South
Africa Company, said to him, "I could tell you something in
confidence," or "I could give you some confidential
information"; but that he (Chamberlain) stopped him at once,
saying, "I do not want to hear any confidential information. I
am here in an official capacity, and I can only hear
information of which I can make official use"; and adding: "I
have Sir Hercules Robinson in South Africa. I have entire
confidence in him, and I am quite convinced he will keep me
informed of everything I ought to know." In concluding his
testimony, Mr. Chamberlain said: "I desire to say, in the most
explicit manner, that I did not then have, and that I never
had, any knowledge or—until, I think it was, the day before
the raid took place—the slightest suspicion of anything in the
nature of a hostile or armed invasion of the Transvaal." The
Committee having called upon Mr. Rhodes' solicitor, a Mr.
Hawksley, to produce telegrams which had passed between Mr.
Rhodes and himself, refused to do so.

"The proceedings which ensued were not to the credit of the

Committee, for instead of reporting the matter to the House at
once in a special report, they decided to refer to it in the
interim report on the raid. Mr. Labouchere and Mr. Blake alone
opposed this course, which was either a confession of
unwillingness to reach the bottom of the business, or the
suggestion that somebody was to be shielded. … Having devoted
two days to hearing counsel on behalf of Mr. Rhodes, Mr. Beit
and Dr. Harris, the Committee adjourned to consider its
report. The general feeling was that the proceedings had been
conducted with singular laxity or want of skill. Those
interested in keeping secret the true history of the raid were
entirely successful, and it was generally by the merest chance
that any fact of importance was elicited from the witnesses.
The representatives of the Opposition, Sir William Harcourt,
Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman and Mr. Buxton, were, after Mr.
Rhodes had been unaccountably permitted to quit England,
willing to allow the breakdown of the proceedings; and what
was even more surprising in so strict a parliamentarian as Sir
William Harcourt, a witness was allowed to treat the Committee
with defiance, and to pass unchecked. To a very great extent the
inquiry had been obviously factitious, but in whose interest
concealment was considered necessary remained undivulged. It
was surmised that reasons of State had been found which
outweighed party considerations, and that the leaders of the
Opposition had been privately convinced that the alleged
grounds were sufficient for the course adopted."

The report of the majority of the Committee, signed by all of

its members except Mr. Labouchere and Mr. Blake (the former of
whom submitted a minority report), was made public on the 13th
of July. The results of its inquiry were summed up under the
following heads:

I. "Great discontent had, for some time previous to the

incursion, existed in Johannesburg, arising from the
grievances of the Uitlanders.

II. Mr. Rhodes occupied a great position in South Africa; he

was Prime Minister of the Cape Colony, and, beyond all other
persons, should have been careful to abstain from such a
course of action as that which he adopted. As managing
director of the British South Africa Company, as director of
the De Beers Consolidated Mines and the Gold Fields of South
Africa, Mr. Rhodes controlled a great combination of
interests; he used his position and those interests to promote
and assist his policy. Whatever justification there might have
been for action on the part of the people of Johannesburg, there
was none for the conduct of a person in Mr. Rhodes' position
in subsidising, organising, and stimulating an armed
insurrection against the Government of the South African
Republic, and employing the forces and resources of the
Chartered Company to support such a revolution. He seriously
embarrassed both the Imperial and Colonial Governments, and
his proceedings resulted in the invasion of the territory of a
State which was in friendly relations with her Majesty, in
breach of the obligation to respect the right to
self-government of the South African Republic under the
conventions between her Majesty and that State. Although Dr.
Jameson 'went in' without Mr. Rhodes' authority, it was always
part of the plan that these forces should be used in the
Transvaal in support of an insurrection. Nothing could justify
such a use of such a force, and Mr. Rhodes' heavy
responsibility remains, although Dr. Jameson at the last
moment invaded the Transvaal without his direct sanction.

III. Such a policy once embarked upon inevitably involved Mr.

Rhodes in grave breaches of duty to those to whom he owed
 allegiance. He deceived the High Commissioner representing the
Imperial Government, he concealed his views from his
colleagues in the Colonial Ministry and from the board of the
British South Africa Company, and led his subordinates to
believe that his plans were approved by his superiors.

IV. Your committee have heard the evidence of all the

directors of the British South Africa Company, with the
exception of Lord Grey. Of those who were examined, Mr. Beit
and Mr. Maguire alone had cognisance of Mr. Rhodes' plans. Mr.
Beit played a prominent part in the negotiations with the
Reform Union; he contributed large sums of money to the
revolutionary movement, and must share full responsibility for
the consequences.

V. There is not the slightest evidence that the late High

Commissioner in South Africa, Lord Rosmead, was made
acquainted with Mr. Rhodes' plans. The evidence, on the
contrary, shows that there was a conspiracy to keep all
information on the subject from him. The committee must,
however, express a strong opinion upon the conduct of Sir
Graham Bower, who was guilty of a grave dereliction of duty in
not communicating to the High Commissioner the information
which had come to his knowledge. Mr. Newton failed in his duty
in a like manner.

VI. Neither the Secretary of State for the Colonies nor any of
the officials of the Colonial Office received any information
which made them, or should have made them or any of them,
aware of the plot during its development.

{477}

VII. Finally, your committee desire to put on record an

absolute and unqualified condemnation of the raid and of the
plans which made it possible."
"The result caused for the time being grave injury to British
influence in South Africa. Public confidence was shaken, race
feeling embittered, and serious difficulties were created with
neighbouring States. The course of action subsequently taken by
the Government increased the suspicions which were aroused by
such an emasculated report. Two days after its publication
(July 15), Mr. Balfour was asked to set apart a day for the
formal discussion of so important a matter. To this request
Mr. Balfour, with the tacit concurrence of the front
Opposition bench, replied that he saw no useful purpose to be
served by such a debate."

Those who were known as the "Forward Radicals," or "Forwards,"

in the House, were not to be silenced in this manner, and
debate was forced upon a motion expressing regret at "the
inconclusive action and report of the select committee on
British South Africa," and summoning Mr. Hawksley to the bar
of the House, to produce "then and there," the telegrams which
he had refused to the committee. In the course of the
discussion which followed, Mr.Chamberlain expressed his
conviction that, "while the fault of Mr. Rhodes was about as
great a fault as a politician or statesman could commit, there
existed nothing which affected his personal character as a man
of honour." When Sir Elliott Lees, a supporter of the
government, rose to protest against such a doctrine, he was
met by cries which silenced his speech. The House then
divided, and the resolution was defeated by 304 to 77. "It was
an open secret that throughout the debate one member,
unconnected with either front bench, sat with the famous
telegrams in his pocket, and with them certain correspondence
relating thereto which he had been instructed to read in the
event of Mr. Rhodes' character being aspersed."

Annual Register, 1897.

"The position … stands thus. The Colonial Office conceals its

own documents. From none of its officials have we had any
detailed or frank statement as to their relations to South
African affairs during the critical period. The High
Commissioner himself has not been examined. Mr. Rhodes has
been allowed to go without any serious inquiry into this
branch of the case. The most important cables are refused by
Mr. Rhodes's order, and the Committee decline to exercise
their power to compel the production of them. The story, in
fact, so far as it concerns this question of the truth or
falsity of the allegation that Mr. Chamberlain was 'in it,' is
being smothered up, with an audacious disregard of the
principles which guide all ordinary tribunals. The last steps
in this proceeding have been taken with the direct assent of
the leader of the Opposition. Everybody, therefore, is
inquiring what reason can have induced Sir William Harcourt to
execute this startling change of front. There is only one
reason that can, with any probability, be assigned-that is,
that some member of the Government has made a 'Front Bench
communication' to the leader of the Opposition, indicating to
him explicitly that there are 'reasons of State' for stopping
the disclosures. There can be little doubt that this is what
has happened, and conjecture, not only in this country but
elsewhere, will naturally be keen to know what the nature of
this momentous disclosure was.

"If Mr. Chamberlain was as absolutely free from knowledge of

the Jameson plan as he has professed to be, it is hard to see
how full disclosure could do any damage to the Empire, or
could do anything but good to the Colonial Secretary himself.
Mr. Chamberlain, of course, professes in words his private
desire that everything should come out. He has not, however,
assisted in the attainment of that result. The consequence is
that a national and international question of very grave
importance has arisen. It is said in circles usually well
informed, that when the Raid occurred, it became necessary to
give assurances to foreign Governments, and in particular to
Germany, that the Queen's Government was in no way
compromised. These assurances, it is said, were given. It is
 even said that they were given expressly in the name of the
Queen. Something of this kind may well have happened; but it
is hard to see how, if it did happen, and if the Colonial
Office was as innocent as it claims to be, the disclosure of
the facts can do anything but confirm the Queen's word. That
documents exist which are supposed to be compromising, and
which the very authors of them allege to be compromising, is a
fact past hiding. It casts, unless it is cleared up, a damning
doubt. Therefore it would appear to be the duty of all honest
men, and, above all, of the Parliament of Great Britain, to
see that an immediate end is put to a policy which may be
aptly described as 'thimble-rigging,' and that the truth,
whether it suits Mr. Rhodes or Mr. Chamberlain, or neither of
them, must be told at fist."

Contemporary Review,
July, 1897.

SOUTH AFRICA: Orange Free State and Transvaal: A. D. 1897 (April).

Treaty of alliance.

In April, the two republics entered into a treaty for mutual

support and defense against attacks on the independence of
either, each opening its political franchises to the citizens
of the other on the taking of an oath of allegiance.

SOUTH AFRICA: The Transvaal: A. D. 1897 (April).

Military expenditure by British and Boer Governments.

The budget of the British Chancellor of the Exchequer,

submitted to the House of Commons in April, contained an item
of '£200,000 for increased military expenditure in South
Africa. This was promptly attacked by the opposition, who
accused the government of pursuing a war policy in its
dealings with the Transvaal. Sir William Harcourt declared
that Mr. Chamberlain had, "in every utterance of his during
the last few months, been endeavouring to exasperate sentiment