without being reminded of an old-time school master and sometimes not without reminis cent bodily pangs and hot flashes of anger. There is undoubtedly better order now in the public schools than in the days of the birch. The painter and the novelist have had much to do with this. Cruikshank's picture of the terrified boy, " horsed " on the back of the grinning assistant, with the rag
ing master flying at him with a bundle of rods, was an object lesson of great efficiency. Marryat claimed that the horrible barbarity of flogging around the feet, depicted in " The King's Own," was considerably ameliorated by that novel, and we all know what Dickens' picture of " Dotheboy's Hall," in " Nicholas Nickleby " did for the abolition of school cruelties.
MODERN INTERNATIONAL LAW PROBLEMS. III. INTERNATIONAL OCCUPATION. THE questions we have hitherto consid ered — exterritorial jurisdiction and foreign divorce — have belonged to the pro vince of " Conflict of Laws." We may turn now with advantage to a problem in Public International Law — pure and simple — the doctrine of International Occupation.1 Nearly every civilized power has, in modern times, participated in the race for empire. Some jurai basis for the struggle had to be found, and as was to be expected in a case where action came first, and its justification had to be discovered afterwards, various jurai bases for these natural expansions have been put forward. The earliest view was that dis covery gave a title to countries inhabited by uncivilized nations. (See Salomon's L'Occu pation des Territories Sans Maîtres]. It was probably under the influence of this con ception that Pope Alexander VI. (Roderie Borgia) issued his Bull, of May 14, 1493, purporting to divide the whole undiscovered non-Christian universe between Spain and Portugal. The replies to this Papal thunder bolt from the non-Roman Catholic world were the grant by Queen Elizabeth of Eng land of the first of the East India company's charters (1600) and the formation of the
powerful Dutch East India company (1602) which combined the associations of Dutch merchants who had fitted out two great ex peditions to Java by the Cape in 1595-1596 and 1598-1599. Soon, however, a second theory, different, but derivable from the first, began to manifest itself. Nations based their title to sovereignty over new countries from " occupation " — occupation by the way which might be merely ocitlis ct affectu. "The acts " says Mr. Macdonell (itbi siipni), "relied upon might be the hoisting of a flag, the erection of a mound or cross, the firing of a salute, the purchase of a treaty in exchange for rum, beads, or knick-knacks from a chief who professed to sell what he did not always own. In everj' dispute as to boundaries or territory, these two theories are still brought forward, and in the majority of books the latter, in some form or other, is still the dominant theory."
It is not difficult to see how occupation came to secure for itself this prominent place in the controversy. Early writers on international law assumed that the rules of private Roman law could be applied to the transactions of States and that such rules were sufficient to cover the field of inter national relations. From many points of view the assumption was justified. " In 1 See an admirable paper on this subject in the Journal structive analogies were suggested. There of the Laws of Comparative Legislation. N. S. 2.
