66

Successful candidates have further to undergo a probationary period of one year and pass a final examination, and if successful in this they are finally appointed by the secretary of state. In addition to the members of the regular or covenanted Civil Service, natives of India of proved merit or ability may be appointed to any office or place in the Civil Service without undergoing any preliminary qualification under an Act of 1870, (u) and the rules and regulations made thereunder by the Governor-General in Council with the approval of the Secretary of State in Council.

Throughout India the unit of civil administration is the district presided over by a collector magistrate or deputy commissioner, who performs both administrative and judicial functions. Districts are split up into sub-districts, and the districts themselves are grouped in divisions (x) under a commissioner.

Dependent Native States. In addition to British India proper there are also some 600 dependent native states (y) under the suzerainty of Great Britain, and these occupy a somewhat anomalous position. The jurisdiction exercised by the Crown over these states depends primarily upon usage or treaties made with the various chiefs or native governments. and its exercise is regulated by an Act of the Governor-General in Council. (2) The territory of these native states is not British territory, nor are they, strictly speaking, British protectorates, though they are such for some purposes. (a) The extent of control exercised by the Crown varies in different states. In all cases, however, Great Britain controls the foreign relations of the native state, assumes responsibility for its internal peace and the welfare of British subjects within (u) 33 Vict. c. 3.

(x) Except in Madras.

(y) These vary greatly in size, only some 200 being of any great importance. The Nyzam of Hyderabad (the premier state in India) rules over a territory comprising some 82,000 square miles and containing a population of over 11 millions. The territories of some of the smaller chiefs comprise only a few acres.

(z) The Foreign Jurisdiction and Extradition Act, 1879, No. xxi. of 1879.

(a) By the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890, " where in future an Order in Council is made extending to persons enjoying his Majesty's protection, all subjects of the several princes and states in India are to be included in that expression."

its borders, and requires its co-operation in repelling foreign aggression. In no case can the native state declare peace or war, or maintain diplomatic relations with other states or foreign countries.

Though primarily the jurisdiction of the Crown over the feudatory native states depends upon treaty or agreement, in practice the Crown claims and exercises a much larger measure of control where the interests of the Empire or of the subjects of the native princes are concerned. (b) In cases of flagrant misgovernment the Crown even goes so far as to suspend temporarily, or actually to depose the native rulers, and within the last half-century at least six native chiefs have been dethroned. In most native states, however, the management of internal affairs, including taxation and the administration of justice, are left in the hands of the native government with the help and advice of a British political resident agent.

British Indian law does not run into such states, but they are strictly limited as to the number of troops they are allowed to maintain, and no European is allowed to reside at their courts without a special permit from the British Government.

Outlying States.-Three outlying states come within the sphere of British influence, but cannot be said to be dependent states. These are-Nepal, Bhutan, and Afghanistan. They enjoy complete internal independence, but a resident British political agent represents Great Britain in Nepal and Afghanistan, and looks after her political interests in matters of foreign policy. Nepal and Bhutan have political relations with China; but with no other country except India, whilst the Amir of Afghanistan is bound by agreement not to maintain foreign relations with any power except India. (c)

(b) See Hall, Foreign Jurisdiction, p. 206, n.

(c) In addition to these an agreement was concluded with Thibet in 1904.

CHAPTER IV.

PROTECTORATES AND MISCELLANEOUS POSSESSIONS.

British Protectorates.

Nature of British Protectorates.-Protectorates differ from colonies in that they do not form an integral portion of the territory of the protecting state. (a) The amount of control exercised by various states over the internal administration of their protectorates varies greatly, Germany, (b) France, and other European nations claiming and exercising a much greater measure of control than Great Britain. Both foreign and British protectorates, however, have these points in common:(1) Internationally they act as a barrier in favour of the protecting state, against conquest or occupation by or cession to any other state. (c)

(2) In all cases the protecting state assumes external sovereignty over the protected territory; that is to say, its foreign relations are controlled by the protecting state, and no other state can maintain diplomatic or political communication with it except through the medium of the protecting state.

(3) International law is not concerned with the relations between the protecting and the protected states, except in so far as other foreign states are concerned to see that the former carries out the obligations with regard to themselves, which it has imposed upon itself by assuming the protectorate. (d) The minimum of obligations thus imposed are those which flow as a necessary consequence from the fact that other foreign states are debarred from all

(a) Hall, International Law, p. 130.

(b) German protectorates would seem to be protectorates in name only, and their administration is based on the unrestricted sovereignty of the emperor as fully as in actual German colonies. (Ib. 134, n.)

(c) See Hall, International Law, p. 130.

(d) Hall, International Law, p. 131.

direct external diplomatic and political communication with the protected state. The protecting state would therefore in all cases be bound to interfere, at least so far in the internal administration of the protected territory as to ensure adequate protection to the rights of foreigners against the attacks of its own or protected subjects, as well as to the rights of its own and protected subjects against the attacks of foreigners.

(4) Protectorates assumed by European Powers over barbarous tribes may generally be considered as a preliminary step to the exercise of complete internal and external sovereignty consequent on annexation. (e) Such seem to be the principal characteristics common to all protectorates, British and foreign, but the powers of internal administration assumed by the protecting state differ amongst various European states, and in British protectorates themselves.

Generally speaking, other European nations claim and exercise within their protectorates an unlimited jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters over both protected subjects and foreigners. But the English standpoint seems to fall far short of this, the ordinary course adopted being to make the consent of the foreigner and also the consent of his Government necessary before a suit can be brought against him in the Protectorate Court. (f)

Since the Brussels conference of 1840, however, the view held by other European nations seems to have been adopted by England also, at least with regard to her African protectorates. (g) The jurisdiction exercised by the Crown in

(e) E.g. the annexation of Bechuanaland to Cape Colony, and Zululand to Natal. The influence of the Sultan is rapidly diminishing in the protectorate of Brunei, and that territory will no doubt be completely absorbed by England in course of time.

(f) This is so in the case of Brunei, Zanzibar, Sarawak, and North Borneo. This principle seems to have been based on the theory that the authority exercised by Great Britain is a delegated one only; and that the chief of barbarous tribes, having no jurisdiction over subjects of foreign nations, could not delegate such an authority to Great Britain.

(g) At the Berlin Conference of 1884-5, England did not acquiesce in this view; but by assenting to the General Act of the Brussels Conference of 1890, which had regard in particular to the measures to be adopted in African protectorates, she seems to have shifted her ground,

Protectorates depends primarily upon agreement or treaty with the native ruler or chief, or in cases where there is no responsible Government to grant jurisdiction, it has been assumed by the Crown either with or without opposition on the part of the native population in order to afford protection to British commercial or political interests. Subject, however, to the respect which is shown to agreements or treaties with native rulers or chartered companies, the Crown may by prerogative impose legislation on, or establish its jurisdiction over, protectorates. This right, as well in foreign countries generally as in protectorates, has been placed on a statutory basis by various Foreign Jurisdiction Acts, now consolidated in the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890, (h) which enacts that "whereas by treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance, and other lawful means, his Majesty has jurisdiction within divers foreign countries, . . . it is and shall be lawful for his Majesty to hold and enjoy any jurisdiction which his Majesty now has, or may at any time hereafter have within a foreign country, in the same and as ample a manner as if his Majesty had acquired that jurisdiction by the cession or conquest of territory." (i)

In protectorates this jurisdiction is generally exercised by administrators, consuls, British agents, or resident commissioners, and is regulated by Order in Council.

Status of Protected Subjects. An important question arises as to the status of British protected subjects when in foreign countries. That they are not British subjects is clear, and in this they are in an inferior position to the protected subjects of other European nations, who are regarded at least so far as Africa is concerned. Accordingly jurisdiction over foreigners is claimed and exercised in various British protectorates in Africa. (See Hall, Foreign Jurisdiction, p. 210 et seq., and Hall, International Law, p. 131, n.)

(h) 53 & 54 Vict. c. 37.

(i) Ib. s. 1. By s. 2, where a foreign country is not subject to any government from whom his Majesty might obtain jurisdiction in the manner recited, his Majesty is to have jurisdiction over his Majesty's subjects for the time being resident in or resorting to that country. Objection has been taken to this limitation of the Crown's jurisdiction to his Majesty's subjects on the ground that it might be open to a foreign subject to plead this section in support of a plea of want of jurisdiction (see Hall, Foreign Jurisdiction, p. 221 et seq.); but since other European nations claim and exercise jurisdiction over British subjects within their protectorates, they could not plead international law in support of such a contention.