failing, at last died at Edenton on the 2oth October, 1799, in the noon of life and the zenith of his glory. The daily walk and life of Iredell from the boy of seventeen to the statesman and jurist of forty-eight, so vividly pictured to us by McRee, reads like an epic poem. The im mature lad of seventeen, torn by stress of fortune from a gentle home and transplanted in a strange and wild land — springing in a day into the maturity of manhood — rising abruptly into the full radiance of public life — called in rapid succession from one high office to another, until he had exhausted
all, and filling all with equal roundness, until at the last,, weary and worn, he sinks into rest followed by the love and respect of all. In reviewing his life, I am at a loss which most to admire, his gentle dignity, his amia ble disposition, his independence of thought and action, his sturdy self-reliance, his equi poise of mind, his high character, or his splen did abilities. Throughout the whole period of the Revolution, when North Carolina was in her most perilous strait, there is scarce a page of her history upon which the name of Iredell is not written.
MODERN INTERNATIONAL LAW PROBLEMS. II. FOREIGN DIVORCES. THE question -of foreign divorce enters into the field of international law at three different points — proceedings for big amy, suits for dissolution of marriage, and disputes as to testate or intestate succession. An examination of the legal conceptions of divorce and of the effects of foreign divorces entertained in England and America will, however, throw sufficient light on the vari ous problems to which it gives rise and the solutions that have been attempted or ar rived at. It is scarcely necessary to pre mise that only marriages of a monogamous character are recognized as laying a basis for divorce. (In re Bethek (1888), 38 Ch. D. 220; and as to American law see i Bish. Mar. & D. § 3; and 50 N. W. Rep. (Neb.) 155, and 125 U. S. at p. 210.) Both in England and in America divorce is treated as a matter depending on domicil and not, as in certain foreign states, on the nationality of the husband. It is chiefly in connection
with the weight to be assigned to foreign di vorces that the relationship of domicil to di vorce has been worked out. In England the doctrine has had a curious history. The latest authority is the judgment of the Privy Council — delivered by Lord Watson, and well worthy of the reputation of that very great judge — in Le Mesurier i Le Mesurier. But before considering the present position of matters we must take a retrospect. At first the English courts were disposed to hold that an English marriage could not be dissolved by a foreign court, nor indeed other wise than by a British statute. (McCarthy v. Decaix (1831), 2 Russ. & M. 614.) That view was overruled by the judgment of the House of Lords in Shaw v. Gould (1868), (L. R. 3 H. L. 85). The next position at tempted to be supported was the inability of a foreign court to dissolve a marriage on any ground not recognized by English law. Harvey v. Farne (1883), (8 App. Cas. 43;
