obligations, in the strict sense of the words, but the matter is one of morality, reciprocity, and the welfare of the civilized world. And the faithful observance of international compacts is of the utmost consequence for the settlement of international differences, the conclusion of actual hostilities when they arise, and the establishment of confidence instead of continued suspicion and jealousy between States on the close of disputes.

We believe in the possibility of a work on international jurisprudence of a character different from that of either of those before us, one which, while boldly setting aside the fictions on which celebrated publicists have hitherto built, shall yet lay a solid foundation for the best parts of the system they have expounded. Both Mr. Boyd's edition of Wheaton and Sir Sherston Baker's of Halleck, however, undoubtedly meet an existing demand, and they supplement one another. Sir Sherston Baker, we must at the same time observe, has in one instance done his author no service by respecting his original text. General Halleck's work was written before the publication of Sir H. Maine's Ancient Law; had he been acquainted with that work he could hardly have committed the blunder of describing the Jus Gentium of the Romans as a civil law of their own, made for the purpose of regulating their own conduct towards others in the hostile intercourse of war.' Such a misconception ought not at any rate to have been left standing without correction or comment, and it shows the uncritical frame of mind in which Sir Edward Creasy pronounced, in a passage quoted in the editor's preface, that the only fault' of General Halleck's work was that it had no index. Neither Wheaton's nor Halleck's work, considerable as their merits are, deserves the commendation of being faultless. Nevertheless, new editions of both were a desideratum, and the present state of European politics adds to their timeliness. Nor will they lose their utility by a settlement of the Eastern Question. Points of international law now frequently start up unexpectedly in time of peace before British tribunals in the remotest parts of the world. The Japan Gazette has reported interesting cases of this sort tried before Mr. H. Wilkinson in the British Court at Kanagawa, and, if our memory serves us, some questions of the

same class deserving the consideration of the law officers of the Crown in this country, came not long ago before Mr. James Russell as Acting Attorney-General at Hong Kong. Nor is it British civil servants only who find editions of works like Wheaton's useful in China. It would not be easy to name a fact putting in a stronger light the increased activity of international relations and the constantly increasing need of a body of principles and rules for their adjustment than the one mentioned in Mr. Boyd's preface, that the last edition of Wheaton by Mr. Lawrence was a translation of the work into Chinese by order of the Chinese Government.