question was the profits basis and not the contractors' basis. Another important decision given by the House of Lords during the year related to the liability of bonus distributions to super-tax, this depending upon whether or not the undistributed profits were capitalised or were distributed as income. In that case it was held that as the fund representing accumulated profits was at the disposal of the company, which could determine as against the whole world whether that fund should be distributed as income or be retained and applied to capital purposes, and that as the company had elected to apply it as income producing capital, that election was binding on the shareholders and could not be questioned by the Crown (Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. Fisher). A large portion of the professional reports were occupied by revenue cases, and two are certainly worthy of notice. In Todd v. Egyptian Delta Land Co., Mr. Justice Rowlatt held that where a company was registered in England and had a registered office here, but that all that was done in this country by the London secretary was that which was required by the Companies Acts, the whole of the rest of the administration and business of the company being carried on abroad, the company was also resident in the United Kingdom for the purposes of income tax. The same learned judge also held in Daphne v. Shaw that the books forming part of a library of a solicitor were not within the words "machinery or plant," and therefore no allowance could be made for wear or tear or for obsolescence. In Buckle v. Holmes-the cat and pigeon" case- -the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Divisional Court that no distinction was to be drawn at common law between a dog or a cat, and that the owner of a cat was not responsible for a trespass which resulted in damage to an adjoining owner's pigeons. A question of some importance was decided by the Divisional Court in Noble v. Harrison, where a branch of a tree on the defendant's land which over-hung the highway fell owing to a latent defect and caused damage. It was there held that there was no responsibility on the part of the tree owner, either on the ground of nuisance or on the ground of absolute liability as a tree was not in itself a dangerous. object. In Cohen v. Sellar Mr. Justice McCardie reviewed the law relating to gifts in contemplation of marriage, and held that such gifts must be returned by the person who refuses to carry out the promise of marriage. The somewhat curious position of justices who have to sit in licensing matters was brought into prominence by two cases during the year. In Frome United Breweries Co. v. Bath Justices, the House of Lords held that where justices elected to appear as opponents of a renewal of a license, and took active steps by instructing a solicitor to make their opposition effective, they were not entitled to sit at the meeting of the compensation authority as they could not be free from all suspicion of bias when so sitting to adjudicate. In Rex v. Leicester Justices, the Divisional Court held that where justices objected to the renewal of a license, and referred the question to a compensation authority making a report that the renewal of the license should be refused, the justices who originated the objection were not for that reason alone disqualified for sitting as members of the compensation authority. The difference between the two cases, however, lies in the fact that in the latter case the justices were merely acting under their statutory powers, whereas in the Bath case they went a step further and by instructing a solicitor to appear for them, acted outside those strict statutory powers. A decision to be noted in these days of industrial unrest was given by the Court of Appeal in Pontypridd Guardians v. Drew. In that case, the circumstances of which arose out of the Coal Strike in 1921, it was held that guardians who supply goods by way of ordinary poor relief have no right either at common law or under the Poor Law Amendment Act, 1834, to recover from the recipient the reasonable value of the goods so supplied. Two cases during the year attracted a considerable amount of public attention. In National Sailors and Firemen's Union v. Reed, Mr. Justice Astbury held that a general strike called by the Trades Union Congress in a trade where no trade dispute exists was illegal, and that persons inciting to, or taking part in, such a strike were not protected by the Trades Disputes Act, 1906. Although some of the learned judge's observations may be regarded as obiter, the general principles laid down by him are of considerable interest. The other case was that of Rex v. Blake, where the ex-governor of a prison was prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act for contributing an article to a newspaper in which statements alleged to have been made to him by a condemned prisoner in his charge were set out. Owing to the wide nature of the statute it was held that its provisions had been infringed and a conviction was recorded. Changes on the Bench were not many. Lord Justice Warrington retired in October, and was created a peer. Mr. Justice Lawrence was promoted to the Court of Appeal, and Mr. Clauson, K.C., was made a judge of the Chancery Division. Mr. Robert M'Cleary, Mr. Leonard Thomas, Mr. Roope Reeve, K.C., and Mr. W. F. Davies were made County Court judges; and Mr. Sandbach, K.C., and Mr. R. A. Powell Metropolitan Police magistrates. Mr. Harold Morris, K.C., succeeded Sir William Mackenzie as President of the Industrial Court, and Sir Denham Warmington became a registrar in bankruptcy. PUBLIC DOCUMENTS.1 I. REPORT OF INTER-IMPERIAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE THE Report of the Committee on Inter-Imperial Relations was adopted by the Imperial Conference on November 19, 1926. The members of the Committee on Inter-Imperial Relations, in addition to Lord Balfour, included the Prime Ministers of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa and Newfoundland, the VicePresident of the Executive Council of the Irish Free State, the Secretary of State for India as head of the Indian Delegation, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs. Other Ministers and Members of the Imperial Conference attended particular meetings. The text of the Report is as follows : I. INTRODUCTION. We were appointed at the meeting of the Imperial Conference on the 25th October, 1926, to investigate all the questions on the Agenda affecting Inter-Imperial Relations. Our discussions on these questions have been long and intricate. We found, on examination, that they involved consideration of fundamental principles affecting the relations of the various parts of the British Empire inter se, as well as the relations of each part to foreign countries. For such examination the time at our disposal has been all too short. Yet we hope that we may have laid a foundation on which subsequent Conferences may build. II. STATUS OF GREAT BRITAIN AND THE DOMINIONS. The Committee are of opinion that nothing would be gained by attempting to lay down a Constitution for the British Empire. Its widely scattered parts have very different characteristics, very different histories, and are at very different stages of evolution; while, considered as a whole, it defies classification and bears no real resemblance to any other political organisation which now exists or has ever yet been tried. 1 Nos. I. and II. are printed by permission of the Controller of H.M. Stationery Office from Parliamentary Papers Čmd. 2768 and Cmd. 2679 respectively. There is, however, one most important element in it which, from a strictly constitutional point of view, has now, as regards all vital matters, reached its full development-we refer to the group of self-governing communities composed of Great Britain and the Dominions. Their position and mutual relation may be readily defined. They are autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. A foreigner endeavouring to understand the true character of the British Empire by the aid of this formula alone would be tempted to think that it was devised rather to make mutual interference impossible than to make mutual co-operation easy. Such a criticism, however, completely ignores the historic situation. The rapid evolution of the Oversea Dominions during the last fifty years has involved many complicated adjustments of old political machinery to changing conditions. The tendency towards equality of status was both right and inevitable. Geographical and other conditions made this impossible of attainment by the way of federation. The only alternative was by the way of autonomy; and along this road it has been steadily sought. Every self-governing member of the Empire is now the master of its destiny. In fact, if not always in form, it is subject to no compulsion whatever. But no account, however accurate, of the negative relations in which Great Britain and the Dominions stand to each other can do more than express a portion of the truth. The British Empire is not founded upon negations. It depends essentially, if not formally, on positive ideals. Free institutions are its life-blood. Free co-operation is its instrument. Peace, security, and progress are among its objects. Aspects of all these great themes have been discussed at the present Conference; excellent results have been thereby obtained. And though every Dominion is now, and must always remain, the sole judge of the nature and extent of its co-operation, no common cause will, in our opinion, be thereby imperilled. Equality of status, so far as Britain and the Dominions are concerned, is thus the root principle governing our Inter-Imperial Relations. But the principles of equality and similarity, appropriate to status, do not universally extend to function. Here we require something more than immutable dogmas. For example, to deal with questions of diplomacy and questions of defence, we require also flexible machinery-machinery which can, from time to time, be adapted to the changing circumstances of the world. This subject also has occupied our attention. The rest of this report will show how we have endeavoured not only to state political theory, but to apply it to our common needs. III. SPECIAL POSITION OF INDIA. It will be noted that in the previous paragraphs we have made no mention of India. Our reason for limiting their scope to Great Britain and the Dominions is that the position of India in the Empire is already defined by the Government of India Act, 1919. We would, nevertheless, recall that by Resolution IX. of the Imperial War Conference, 1917, due recognition was given to the important position held by India in the British Commonwealth. Where, in this Report, we have had occasion to consider the position of India, we have made particular reference to it. IV. RELATIONS BETWEEN THE VARIOUS PARTS OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE. Existing administrative, legislative, and judicial forms are admittedly not wholly in accord with the position as described in Section II. of this Report. This is inevitable, since most of these forms date back to a time well antecedent to the present stage of constitutional development. Our first task, then, was to examine these forms with special reference to any cases where the want of adaptation of practice to principle caused, or might be thought to cause, inconvenience in the conduct of Inter-Imperial Relations. (a) The Title of His Majesty the King. The title of His Majesty the King is of special importance and concern to all parts of His Majesty's Dominions. Twice within the last fifty years has the Royal Title been altered to suit changed conditions and constitutional developments. The present title, which is that proclaimed under the Royal Titles Act of 1901, is as follows: 66 George V., by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India." Some time before the Conference met, it had been recognised that this form of title hardly accorded with the altered state of affairs arising from the establishment of the Irish Free State as a Dominion. It had further been ascertained that it would be in accordance with His Majesty's wishes that any recommendation for change should be submitted to him as the result of discussion at the Conference. We are unanimously of opinion that a slight change is desirable, and we recommend that, subject to His Majesty's approval, the necessary legislative action should be taken to secure that His Majesty's title should henceforward read: 66 George V., by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland, and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India." (b) Position of Governors-General.-We proceeded to consider whether it was desirable formally to place on record a definition of the position held by the Governor-General1 as His Majesty's representative in the Dominions. That position, though now generally well recognised, undoubtedly represents a development from an earlier stage when the 1 The Governor of Newfoundland is in the same position as the Governor-General of a Dominion. |