SHIH SHUN LIU
Its Rise and Its Decline
I. MADAGASCAR (^)
- I. MADAGASCAR
Notes by the Author
- THE fourth method whereby extraterritoriality is sometimes abrogated is by the passing of a Power in which such a system exists under the protection of another in which it does not. The form of protection varies according as the treaties which bring it about vary in providing for it. It never involves any change of sovereignty and does not always entail a transfer of jurisdiction. We shall find further on that protection in itself does not ipso facto abrogate extraterritoriality. As a rule, the abandonment of foreign jurisdiction in a protectorate is conditioned upon an improvement of the judicial system there consistent with the principles of modern jurisprudence. (*A)
In Madagascar, as we have seen, extraterritoriality was abolished only after France annexed the island in 1896. While it was under the protection of France, the latter's attempts to seek the consent of Great Britain to the discontinuance of her consular jurisdiction in Madagascar were unfruitful. One of the reasons for the British refusal to comply with the request of France was that the status of the island was not changed by the forcible annexation on the part of France and remained to be that of a protectorate, which should not involve the abrogation of all treaties between Madagascar and other Powers. The United States, likewise, insisted upon a "categorical statement" regarding the effect of the annexation, before she would give up her extraterritorial rights in the island. All this goes to show that the establishment of a protectorate does not necessarily put an end to extraterritoriality in the protected State .
II. ZANZIBAR (^)
Zanzibar became a British protectorate by the treaty of June 14, 1890 , and notification was sent out by the British Foreign Office to this effect on November 4 . On May 11, 1900, an Order in Council was made public, which established the British judicial system in Zanzibar. According to this Order, the jurisdiction of the British Court "extends to British subjects, to British protected persons, to foreigners with respect to whom the Sultan of Zanzibar has decreed, or the Sovereign or Government whose subjects or citizens they are or are claimed as being, has, by Treaty or otherwise, agreed with His Majesty for, or consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by His Majesty, and to Zanzibar subjects in the regular service of such foreigners."  This Order took effect on November 4, 1908 , on which date the sultan issued a decree to the same effect .
After the establishment of the British protectorate over Zanzibar, France by a declaration exchanged with the British Government on August 5, 1890, engaged to recognize it as soon as she should receive notification of the same. But it was understood on either side that the establishment of the protectorate would not affect the rights and immunities enjoyed by French citizens in the territory in question . In 1897, in compliance with a British request in connection with the British rights in Madagascar, France gave the British Government the assurance that she would abandon her extraterritorial jurisdiction in Zanzibar, as soon as regularly constituted judicial authorities should be set up there. This promise was fulfilled in 1904, when France formally gave up her rights of jurisdiction in Zanzibar .
On November 14, 1899, a convention was concluded between Germany and Great Britain, by which the former renounced her rights of extraterritoriality in Zanzibar, the renunciation being understood, however, to take effect only when the other nations had also given up their rights . The condition was deemed by the German Government to have been fulfilled in 1907, when Portugal abandoned her jurisdiction in Zanzibar. Consequently, an exchange of notes was effected on February 25/March 15, 1907, between Germany and Great Britain, giving effect to the renunciation of 1899, and on June 1, 1907, the German emperor issued a decree announcing the abolition of German jurisdiction in Zanzibar .
The United States made a treaty with Great Britain on February 25, 1905, which contained a conditional renunciation of her extraterritorial rights in Zanzibar, similar to that embodied in the German treaty of 1899 . After Portugal and Germany definitely gave up their rights, the United States followed suit in 1907 .
Similar renunciations were made by Italy in 1905 , and by Portugal , Belgium , Austria-Hungary  and Russia  in 1907.
III. TONGA (^)
The German Empire concluded a treaty with Great Britain on November 14, 1899, by which the former renounced in favor of the latter all her rights in Tonga, including those of extraterritoriality . In 1900, Tonga was placed under British protection. The treaty which established the protectorate provided also that "Her Majesty shall have and exercise jurisdiction ... in the case of the subjects or citizens of all foreign Powers in Tonga" . The German renunciation took effect on September 1, 1902, by the Imperial Order of June 26, 1902 . The United States was deprived of her jurisdictional rights in Tonga on July 28, 1919, when Lord Curzon, British Foreign Secretary, notified the American Government of the denunciation by Great Britain on behalf of the Queen of Tonga of the treaty of October 2, 1886 .
IV. TUNIS (^)
In 1881, Tunis was placed under the protection of France . On March 27, 1883, the French president promulgated a law, passed by Parliament, establishing a French tribunal and six magistrates' courts in Tunis, to take cognizance of all civil and commercial questions between Frenchmen and French-protected subjects and of all criminal cases in which Frenchmen and French-protected subjects are defendants, and authorizing His Highness the Bey to extend the jurisdiction of these courts by edicts or decrees with the assent of the French Government . By virtue of this authority, the Bey of Tunis issued a decree on May 5, 1883, to the effect that "the subjects of the friendly Powers whose Consular Tribunals shall be suppressed shall become amenable to the jurisdiction of the French Tribunals under the same conditions as the French themselves" .
On September 13, 1882, the French Ambassador at London, M. Tissot, spoke informally to Earl Granville, British Foreign Secretary, on the subject of a proposed judicial reform in Tunis, saying that the French Government intended to establish in Tunis on January 1, 1883, tribunals which would render useless the exercise of the rights then existing under the Capitulations. "There would be no inconvenience," he said, "in the change to foreigners, because the object of the Capitulations was to defend foreigners from the injustice to which they would have been exposed by recourse to the Native Courts." The French Government proposed to do in Tunis, he added, what England had done in Cyprus. Earl Granville thanked him for the information, but said that the matter required his careful consideration before he could express an opinion .
In his conversation with Sir Julian Pauncefote, British Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, on October 4, 1882, M. Tissot again alluded to the subject of consular jurisdiction in Tunis. In the course of discussion, Sir Julian stressed the importance of British interests in Tunis and expressed the desire to know what guarantees the French Government was prepared to offer to these interests. In reply, M. Tissot assured Sir Julian that the judicial institutions which the French Government proposed to establish in Tunis would leave nothing to be desired and that the foreigners in Tunis would find the same security as was afforded to them by the judiciary in France .
The British attitude toward the question of extraterritoriality in Tunis was from the outset favorable to the French point of view. Early in the negotiations, Lord Granville said:
Her Majesty's Government are willing to recognize the justice of the contention that there would be no sufficient reason for maintaining Consular jurisdiction in Tunis when the Native Courts are superseded by French Tribunals. The institutions which have grown up under the Capitulations with Turkey have been found essential for the protection of foreigners under the peculiar circumstances of the Ottoman Empire, and the necessity for them disappears when Tribunals organized and controlled by an European Government take the place of the Mussulman Courts.
Concluding this correspondence, Lord Granville evinced on behalf of his government the readiness to entertain any proposals on the subject the French Government might make, with the proviso that Great Britain would reserve all other rights and privileges, commercial or otherwise, guaranteed to her subjects by treaties .
On May 10, 1883, Count d'Aunay left with the British Foreign Office a note verbale, together with copies of the laws providing for the organization of French jurisdiction in Tunis. The note adverted once more to the precedent of England's assumption of jurisdiction over foreigners in Cyprus, and to the belief on the part of France that England would accord to the French proposal the same reception as France had accorded to the British regime in Cyprus. It took occasion also to reiterate the judicial guarantees offered by the laws establishing the French regime in Tunis, with a view of convincing the British Government of the acceptability of the French request .
Having taken cognizance of the French note and laws, Earl Granville expressed his willingness to accede to the French proposal in the following terms:
As I have had occasion to inform Your Excellency in the course of conversation on this subject, Her Majesty's Government are quite disposed to waive the rights of this country, under the Capitulations and Treaties, to the extent which may be required to give full scope to the exercise of civil and criminal jurisdiction over British subjects by the new French tribunals.
In a separate Memorandum, inquiries were made as to certain technical details, which do not need to detain us here . To this Memorandum a reply was made also in the form of a Memorandum . While this communication was regarded by the British Government as on the whole satisfactory, there still remained some points as to which the British Government considered that it was called upon to make reservations before surrendering British consular jurisdiction in Tunis. These reservations were:
1. The right of British subjects to challenge assessors in the new Courts.
2. The admission of duly qualified British advocates to practice before the Courts, without this privilege being limited, as at present proposed, to those only who are now established in Tunis.
3. The extension to Great Britain of all privileges reserved to any other Power in connection with the new system of jurisdiction in Tunis.
4. The immediate settlement by arbitration, or otherwise, of outstanding claims of British subjects in Tunis.
5. The cesser of military jurisdiction over British subjects in cases cognizable by the Civil Tribunals .
These reservations were agreed to by the French Government without difficulty .
In the meantime, the British consular authorities in Tunis were informed of the passing of an Order in Council, regarding the cessation of British extraterritoriality there, and they were instructed to take cognizance of no new cases after December 31, 1883 . The Order in Council referred to was issued on December 31, 1883, providing for the cessation of British jurisdiction on January 1, 1884 .
On September 18, 1897, an arrangement was entered into between Great Britain and France to the following effect:
Art. I. The treaties and conventions of every kind in force between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and France are extended to the Regency of Tunis.
The Government of Her Britannic Majesty will abstain from claiming for its consuls, its subjects and its establishments in the Regency of Tunis other rights and privileges than those secured for it in France .
Cognizance was taken of this arrangement by the Bey of Tunis, who, on October 16, 1897, decreed the abrogation of all earlier treaties with foreign Powers relative to Tunis .
In a recent case, the British Government took occasion to remind the French Government that what the former had engaged to do in 1883 and 1897 was simply to delegate the exercise of British jurisdiction in Tunis to French tribunals, and not to abolish it irrevocably. The arguments advanced on both sides in connection with this case, so far as they relate to the question of extraterritoriality in Tunis, are essentially a part of our study. Let us first examine briefly the facts of the case.
On November 8, 1921, the French Government published in Tunis and Morocco (French zone) under the sovereignty of the Bey of Tunis and the Sultan of Morocco respectively, certain national decrees, the effect of which was shortly to confer French nationality on persons born in those countries of parents also born there and justiciable before French tribunals . In virtue of these decrees, the French Government claimed to impose the obligations of French nationality on British subjects in Tunis and Morocco (French zone) in such a manner as to override their status as British subjects and render them liable to French military service.
Upon being informed by Consul-General Sarell that the French authorities in Tunis had ordered the enlistment of all British subjects born there in 1902 of parents also born in Tunis  (*B), Lord Hardinge, British Ambassador at Paris, lodged a protest with the French Foreign Office, on January 3, 1922, which contained, among other things, the following statement:
English law provides that persons born of British parents of whatever generation in countries where His Majesty's Government possesses extraterritorial rights, are deemed to have been born within British allegiance and so placed on the same footing as persons who derive British nationality in virtue of birth within the British dominions. In foreign countries where His Majesty's Government do not possess extraterritorial rights, children of British parents of the first generation are British subjects in contemplation of British law. It was not till September 18th, 1897, that His Majesty's Government finally gave up British capitulatory rights in the Regency. It follows, therefore, that in contemplation of English law, all persons born of British parents in Tunis before the 18th September, 1897, and all children of such parents, are British subjects .
In his reply, dated January 10, 1922, M. Poincaré wrote to Lord Hardinge, in answer to the British argument based on the capitulatory rights of Great Britain, that the provision of the English law under which the children of British subjects born in countries where His Majesty has capitulatory rights of jurisdiction are deemed to be born within His Majesty's allegiance dates only from the passing of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act of 1914, and cannot, therefore, apply to Tunis, where British capitulatory lights had already ceased; that the capitulatory rights of jurisdiction possessed by Great Britain in Tunis came to a definite end in 1884; that in so far as the Anglo-French arrangement of September 18, 1807, relative to Tunis, might be held to apply to the question at issue, there was entire similarity in the treatment of British subjects in that protectorate and those born in France, inasmuch as the children born in France of foreign parents also born there were in French law deemed to be French citizens .
On February 6, 1922, Lord Hardinge replied to M. Poincaré on the above points as follows: That the principle of English law embodied in section (i) of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act of 1914 was not of recent origin but was declaratory of a long-established usage; that, the British extraterritorial rights did not come to an end in 1884, but that the change effected between Lord Granville and M. Tissot on June 20, 1883, amounted to no more than the consent of His Majesty's Government to the exercise by the French Government in their behalf of the capitulatory rights of jurisdiction which the British Government still maintained vis-à-vis his Highness the Bey of Tunis; and that the treatment accorded to British subjects in Tunis and that accorded to those in France were not similar, since the latter were given the right to opt against French nationality. In conclusion, the British Government offered to submit the dispute to the Permanent Court of International Justice at the Hague .
M. Poincaré, on the contrary, contended that the principle of the English law referred to above was unknown to common law, which recognized only the principle of jus soli, whereas the principle of jus sanguinis was introduced by statute law, which made its first appearance in 1914. Re-garding the cessation of the British capitulatory rights in Tunis in 1884, it was pointed out once more that such was the case and that, furthermore, in the correspondence between Lord Granville and M. Tissot, in 1883, no mention was made of the delegation to France of the rights enjoyed by Great Britain, which had been suggested in Lord Hardinge's note of February 6. Moreover, the British Order in Council of December 31, 1883, had expressly provided for the termination of these rights in Tunis. As to the similarity of treatment accorded to British subjects in Tunis and in France, the French Government admitted that the British observation relative to the right of option was true of the law of 1874, but added that the right was taken away in 1889 from foreigners born in France of parents also born there and that if it was restored by the law of July 22, 1893, it was only in the case where one of the parents who was born in France would not give his or her nationality to the child. Finally, M. Poincaré insisted on treating the question as one of domestic jurisdiction and not subject to arbitration .
On July 14, 1922, a Memorandum prepared by the British Government was communicated by Sir Milne Cheetham, British Chargé d'Affaires at Paris, to the French Government. The arguments stated above were summarized and re-emphasized in the Memorandum, which closed with the wish that the French Government might consent to the submission of the dispute to arbitration and the determined announcement that "should they nevertheless persist in their decision to refuse arbitration, His Majesty's Government will, in this event, have no alternative but to place the whole question before the Council of the League of Nations in accordance with the terms of the Covenant of the League .
In the midst of these negotiations, a report was received at the British Foreign Office that ten British subjects had been arrested by the gendarmerie in Tunis and forcibly put into military uniform . Protests were lodged by Mr. Andrews with the French Resident-General, and the immediate release of the British subjects arrested was demanded . At the same time, Sir Milne Cheetham protested to M. Poincaré against the proceedings of the French authorities at Tunis and repeated the declaration that "His Majesty's Government must hold the French Government responsible for any losses or damage consequent upon the action taken by their officials" .
In the meantime, the French Government refused its consent to the submission of the case either to the Permanent Court of International Justice or to the Council of the League of Nations . On August 14, Sir Milne Cheetham informed M. Poincaré of the fact "that, in view of the attitude displayed by the French Government, His Majesty's Government have now no alternative but to submit the dispute which has arisen to the Council of the League of Nations; and that they are taking steps with a view to this question being placed upon the agenda for the Council of the League at its forthcoming meeting" .
Accordingly, the question was submitted by the British Government to the Council of the League . On October 4, 1922, the Council adopted a resolution, referring to the Permanent Court of International Justice the question as to whether the dispute between Great Britain and France "is or is not by international law solely a matter of domestic jurisdiction."  After seven sittings, one private and six public, the Court answered the question in the negative . During the preliminary hearings at the Hague, the French Government submitted its case, which argued, as in the previous correspondence, that British jurisdiction in Tunis had been terminated since 1884 . The British Case, after referring to the treaty of May 12, 1881, which established the French protectorate over Tunis and to the treaty of July 19, 1875, which regulated the relations of Great Britain to Tunis, reviewed the negotiations between France and Great Britain between 1882 and 1883 regarding the cessation of British extraterritoriality in Tunis. The note of Lord Granville to M. Tissot, June 20, 1883, was cited to show "that it merely amounts to a consent on the part of Great Britain to allow French tribunals to exercise on its behalf capitulatory rights of jurisdiction, which it still maintained vis-à-vis the Bey of Tunis." Then, the Order in Council of December 31, 1883, was quoted, and commenting on this Order, the British Case said:
It will be observed that by the terms of this Order in Council, the jurisdiction which Her Majesty abandoned was expressly limited to "such matters and cases as come within the jurisdiction of the said French tribunals," and further, that it is only "the operation of the Orders in Council regulating Her Majesty's Consular Jurisdiction in Tunis," which is determined and not the convention with the Bey of Tunis whereby capitulatory rights of jurisdiction were conferred upon Her Majesty.
The arrangement of September 18, 1897, was likewise referred to and quoted, and certain modifications of it agreed upon in 1919 between the British and French Governments were taken note of. In conclusion, the British Case declared:
It is desired to be pointed out that (in the submission of His Majesty's Government) neither by the Convention of 1897, nor by the modifications introduced by the aforesaid notes were the rights of Great Britain as against the Bey of Tunis under the Convention of 1875 between Great Britain and Tunis affected .
In reply to the British Case, the French Government submitted its Counter-Case, wherein they reviewed the diplomatic correspondence had with England on the subject and reasserted that the renunciation of British jurisdiction in Tunis took place in 1883 with the issuance of the Order in Council of December 31, and not in 1897. The Counter-Case further stated:
Even if the Note of June 20, 1883, and the Order in Council of December 31 of the same year, were not to be considered as a complete abandonment of the Capitulations, it seems difficult [to maintain] that after the Arrangement of September 18, 1897, Great Britain could still affirm that her relations with Tunis continue to be regulated by the general Anglo-Tunisian Treaty of July 19, 1875.
Referring to the British argument that the British rights of extraterritoriality in Tunis were simply delegated to the French tribunals there and were not definitively abandoned, the French Counter-Case observed:
This allegation is materially inexact. France, the protector of Tunis, renders justice in Tunis, not in the name of the foreign Powers, but in her own name. The suppression of foreign consular jurisdiction has been effected, not by delegation to France of the exercise of rights whose enjoyment belonged to the Powers and which they might still revive, but by extinction, to the benefit of the Bey of Tunis, of rights retransferred by the latter to France. This is so true that the Bey of Tunis himself, by a decree of May 5, 1883, declared that in case of the renunciation by the Powers of their privileges of jurisdiction, he would renounce the exercise of the right of jurisdiction which he would then recover, normally, in full. From the legal analysis of the extinction of the Capitulations in Tunis, it follows that it is not each of the Treaty Powers that transmits to France its rights of consular jurisdiction, but it is Tunis that transmits to France the exercise of a right of jurisdiction, the enjoyment of which she [Tunis] has, under the condition of the exercise, recovered. (*C)
Finally, the French advanced the argument that all the treaties and conventions between Tunis and foreign Powers had been definitely abrogated by decrees of the Bey of Tunis at one time or other , and that they had been superseded by arrangements of a different nature, entitling the Powers to no greater privileges in Tunis than were granted to them in France, so that the rights of consular jurisdiction were abolished once and for all and could not be revived .
To the French Case the British Government submitted a reply in the form of a Counter-Case, which asserted:
It is the contention of His Majesty's Government, as explained in the British Case, that the convention of 1875 between Great Britain and Tunis, under which capitulatory rights were conferred upon Great Britain, was, on November 8th, 1921, and still is, in force as between Great Britain and Tunis . . . By the delegation to France in 1883 of the exercise of British rights and the Convention of 1897, both of which were a consequence of the recognition of the French régime of Protection, Great Britain did not forego its capitulatory rights as against the Bey. There is no basis either in Lord Granville's note of June 20th, 1883, or the Convention for such a result, which would be clearly contrary to the intention of the parties concerned, having regard to the safeguards consistently demanded and obtained by European States in Mussulman countries .
To sum up the arguments of both sides before the Permanent Court of International Justice at the Hague, in so far as they related to the status of British extraterritoriality in Tunis: The British Government contended that the note of Lord Granville of June 20, 1883, merely signified the consent of the British Government to the exercise by the French tribunals on behalf of the British Government of rights which were maintained vis-à-vis the Bey of Tunis; that the Order in Council of December 31, 1883, instead of abrogating the British treaty of 1875 with Tunis, terminated only the operation of the Orders in Council regulating British jurisdiction in Tunis and limited the British renunciation to "such matters and cases as come within the jurisdiction of the said French tribunals"; that neither by the convention of September 18, 1897, nor by the modifications introduced by the notes of 1919, did the British Government forego its rights as against the Bey of Tunis; and that, therefore, the convention of July 19, 1875, between Great Britain and Tunis "was, on November 8th, 1921, and still is, in force as between Great Britain and Tunis." On the other hand, the French Government took the position that the note of June 20, 1883, and the Order in Council of December 31 of the same year, amounted to a complete abandonment of British jurisdiction in Tunis; that even if these documents could not be so regarded, the arrangement of September 18, 1897, must be construed to mean such a renunciation; that the rights of jurisdiction exercised by France in Tunis were not delegated by the Powers but expressly by the Bey of Tunis himself by virtue of his Decree of May 5, 1883; that successive Decrees of the Bey in 1897 had announced the definite abrogation of all the treaties with foreign Powers which contained extraterritorial provisions; and that, therefore, the treaty of July 19, 1875, between Great Britain and Tunis had become null and void.
In the question referred to the Permanent Court of International Justice, the latter was not called upon to pass on the merits of the case; what it was requested to do was only to decide whether the question at issue between France and Great Britain "is or is not by international law solely a matter of domestic jurisdiction." Consequently, in the opinion rendered by the Court, it merely took note of the "different views" taken by the two Governments "with regard to the scope of the declarations made by Great Britain in this respect and also with regard to the construction to be placed upon the Arrangement of 1897" , without taking upon itself to pass upon these views; and with respect to the main question submitted to it, the Court ruled that it should be answered in the negative, that is to say, that the dispute "is not by international law solely a matter of domestic jurisdiction" .
By an exchange of notes effected between the Marquess Curzon of Kedleston and Count de Saint-Aulaire on May 24, 1923, at London, it was agreed, on certain conditions, to discontinue the proceedings relative to the French Nationality Decrees, but "it is of course understood that in agreeing to discontinue the proceedings at the Hague, neither His Majesty's Government nor the French Government abandon the point of view which they have maintained in the diplomatic, correspondence and in the preliminary hearings at the Hague." 
Thus, the question is still an open one, for definite settlement has been avoided. Leaving aside the technical bearings of the rights of extraterritoriality on the question of nationality, one may well conjecture that so long as France maintains regularly constituted judicial authorities in Tunis, it is quite unlikely that Great Britain will ever reassert its extraterritorial jurisdiction in the Regency on the basis of the treaty of July 19, 1875, which is claimed by the British Government still to be in force. However, the mere fact that Great Britain takes issue with the view that she abandoned her capitulary rights as against the Bey of Tunis and maintains that she delegated the rights to be exercised by France in her behalf leads to two inevitable conclusions:
(1) That the establishment of a protectorate does not ipso facto terminate existing treaty rights enjoyed by third parties in the protectorate, including those of extraterritoriality; and
(2) that wherever these rights of jurisdiction are given up, they are abandoned because of a general improvement of the native judicial system brought about by the protecting State. This is assuming that the British view is the correct one.
The negotiations between France and Italy for the suspension of the latter's capitulatory rights in Tunis are equally suggestive of these views. It was on February 8, 1883, that the formal opening of the conversations on the subject in question took place between France and Italy. In discussing the question, the Italian Minister, Mancini, emphasized the guarantees to be offered by the new French judicial system, and inquired as to what was precisely proposed to be done in this respect . After a number of conditions were laid down by the one party and fulfilled by the other , the Italian Government finally agreed to the suspension of Italy's consular jurisdiction in Tunis. The protocol of suspension was signed on January 25, 1884, and by it the Italian Government agreed to "suspend in Tunis the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Italian Consular Courts," this jurisdiction to be "transferred to the Courts recently instituted in Tunis, whose competence His Highness the Bey, by a Decree of May 5, 1883, extended to the nationals of the States which should consent to cause their own Consular Courts to cease functioning" .
Before this agreement was reached, however, it had been expressly declared by the Italian Government (1) that what was abandoned by the latter was merely its judicial competence in Tunis, all other immunities and guarantees flowing from the Capitulations, usages and treaties, remaining in full force; (2) that the Italian Government, in view of the substitution of the Tunisian Courts by a French regime, agreed merely to a suspension of their extraterritorial rights; and (3) that this suspension was conditioned on the equal adhesion of all the other Powers, and that whatever privileges and immunities were extended to them should equally be extended to Italy .
Other Powers have followed in the footsteps of England and Italy in suspending or abandoning their extraterritorial rights. According to the language of the declarations made by these Powers, these documents may be divided into two categories. Some of them provide for the renunciation of the right of invoking the Capitulations, while others merely express the intention to abstain from claiming any more privileges in Tunis than are accorded to them in France.
An example of the first group is the declaration between Austria-Hungary and France, dated July 20, 1896, which stipulated:
Austria-Hungary declares that it renounces the right of invoking in Tunis the regime of the Capitulations and that it will refrain from claiming there for its Consuls and its Nationals other rights than those acquired for them in France in virtue of the treaties existing between Austria-Hungary and France .
Declarations similar to this were made by Germany, November 18, 1896 , Belgium, January 2, 1897 , and the United States, March 15, 1904 .
Examples of the second group are more numerous than of the first. Their language is similar, save in the former the engagement to "renounce the right of invoking the regime of the Capitulations" is conspicuously absent. To this group belong the declarations of Russia, October 2/14, 1896 , Switzerland, October 14, 1896 , Spain, January 12, 1897 , Denmark, January 26, 1897 , the Netherlands, April 3, 1897 , Sweden and Norway, May 5, 1897 , and the arrangement between France and Great Britain, September 18, 1897 .
In all these cases, some difficulty may be encountered in ascertaining the precise extent of the abstention. If we take the British view as a standard, which is, at least as far as France is concerned, open to question, the second group of declarations must be construed to mean that the Capitulations were not abrogated, although the exercise of the rights conferred by them was suspended by these declarations. Whether any difference of interpretation was intended by the insertion, in the first group of declarations, of the engagement "to renounce the right of invoking the regime of the Capitulations," and whether an abstention greater in extent than was embodied in the second group of arrangements was intended, are disputable questions. But it appears from the absence, in either group, of any specific renunciation of the Capitulations that both may be regarded as connoting the same thing. Although it is not expressly so stated in the declarations of the second group, what is terminated by them is, as by those of the first group, the right of invoking the Capitulations and not the Capitulations themselves. This is again taking it for granted that the British view is the correct one.
As has been mentioned above, all the treaties and conventions between Tunis and the foreign Powers were declared to be and to remain "definitely abrogated" by decrees of the Bey, dated respectively February 1, August 30 and October 16, 1897 . Whether the action of the Bey is tantamount to the intended nullification is a question still unanswered.
V. MOROCCO (^)
On March 30, 1912. Morocco was by treaty placed under the protection of France . Eight months later, on November 27, by a treaty concluded with Spain, France recognized the latter's interests in the Spanish "zone of influence" in the Shereefian Empire .
In both the French and Spanish zones, steps have been taken by the majority of the Powers to renounce their extraterritorial rights, but there are some exceptions to the rule.
One of the Powers which has not yet given up its extraterritorial jurisdiction in Morocco (French zone) is Great Britain. Although the secret articles annexed to the Anglo-French declaration of April 8, 1904, expressed the willingness of the British Government to entertain any suggestions that the French Government might make with regard to judicial reforms in Morocco , Great Britain has shown no sign of transferring her rights of jurisdiction in the Shereefian Empire to the established French courts. On the contrary, she has insisted on their maintenance by the British authorities. An occasion for the unmistakable reaffirmation of the British policy relating to this question in Morocco, as in Tunis, was furnished by the case of the French Nationality Decrees.
The facts of the case have been related above. After the French Government sought to apply to the British subjects in Morocco the decrees in question, Lord Hardinge, British Ambassador at Paris, protested that such a position was untenable on account of the capitulatory rights still en-joyed by the British subjects in Morocco . In a later despatch, the British Government further contended that the Nationality Act of 1914, which regarded as British subjects those who were born of British parents in countries where Great Britain enjoyed extraterritorial rights, was merely declaratory of existing practice, and that France could not establish the principle of jus soli in a country over which it had no sovereign rights, but exercised only the powers of a protectorate. The note suggested that unless the French Government withdrew the decrees from application to British subjects, His Majesty's Government could only reiterate the demand that the question be referred to arbitration .
In reply, M. Poincaré, in addition to denying the existence in English law of the principle of the Act of 1914, claimed that "responsible for the order and reforms in the French zone of the Shereefian Empire, the French Government has, conjointly with the Sultan, the sovereign right to legislate on the nationality of the descendants of foreigners, in virtue of their birth on the territory, from the moment the foreign Powers which claim them have, in accepting the protectorate, abdicated all title to the maintenance of the prolongation of their jurisdictional privileges." The exercise of this sovereign right, it was argued, was not a subject for arbitration .
The British Memorandum of July 14, 1922, referring to Morocco, merely stated that "the question does not indeed, at present, arise so far as concerns British subjects, seeing that British capitulatory rights exist, and the British community in Morocco are therefore [subject?] neither to native nor to French legislation" .
Finally, as has been seen, the question was submitted by the British Government to the Council of the League of Nations, and by the latter it was referred to the Permanent Court of International Justice, which was requested to decide whether the dispute between France and Great Britain was or was not by international law solely a matter of domestic jurisdiction.
Before the Permanent Court of International Justice, the French Government admitted in their Case that the British Government still exercised capitulatory rights in Morocco, but contended that the refusal of Great Britain to close her consular courts in Morocco was illegitimate and in contravention of the engagement which she had made in adhering to the Franco-German convention of November 4, 1911 , to recognize the French tribunals when they should be constituted and then to renounce, in concert with the other Powers, her judicial regime in Morocco .
After referring to the French treaty of 1912 establishing the protectorate over Morocco, and the British treaty of 1856 regulating the relations between Great Britain and Morocco, the British Case went on to say:
The capitulatory rights of jurisdiction conferred upon His Britannic Majesty by the above treaty are still being exercised by His Majesty's Consular Courts in Morocco, there has been no delegation of those rights to the French tribunals, as in the case of Tunis, nor have those rights been waived, abandoned, or modified in any way .
The Counter-Case of the French Government again relied upon the British adhesion to the Franco-German convention of 1911 as a ground for holding that "Great Britain is not free to delay indefinitely the recognition of the French courts" in Morocco, and added that "the same effects which are deduced in Tunis from the creation of the French courts of the Protectorate, should be deduced in Morocco from the same creation" .
In the British Counter-Case, it was reiterated that "in Morocco His Majesty's capitulatory rights were, on November 8th, 1921, and still are, indisputably, in full vigour, and in direct exercise by the British Authorities" .
To the French argument that the British Government should put an end to their extraterritorial rights in Morocco on account of their adhesion to the Franco-German convention of 1911, the British Counter-Case devoted an extended refutation. In the first place, it was declared, the Franco-German convention of 1911 was not an agreement for the suppression of the Capitulations; what it did was to provide a means of dealing with the claims by foreigners against the Moorish authorities prior to the establishment of the new French judicial system. The wording of article 9 clearly contemplated that the replacement of the consular courts by the new regime could only be effected by agreement between the Powers concerned. Moreover, as between France and Great Britain, the question of the Capitulations in Egypt and Morocco was already regulated by article 2 of the Anglo-French declaration of 1904, in which the British Government agreed to "entertain proposals" for the abolition of the Capitulations in Morocco on condition that the French Government would do the same in Egypt, and the British Government, by acceding to the Franco-German con-vention of 1911, had no intention of substituting "the introduction of the new judicial system in Morocco for the abolition of Capitulations in Egypt as the date on which His Majesty's Government were pledged to abandon their rights." Article 2 of the Anglo-French declaration of 1904 still held good, and article 9 of the 1911 convention could only be regarded as subordinate thereto. Furthermore, the French assumption that the British accession to the convention of 1911 was unconditional was shown to be incompatible with the facts, as the accession was explicitly declared to be conditional on the internationalization of Tangier, "'a condition which has not yet been fulfilled." Finally, it was asserted by the British Counter-Case that after the British accession to the convention of 1911, negotiations were opened between Great Britain and France for the reciprocal abrogation of the Capitulations in Egypt and Morocco, but that it was due to the refusal of the French Government to sign the draft convention that the British consular tribunals still remained in existence in Morocco .
To sum up, the position taken respectively by the British and French Governments is perfectly simple and intelligible. The French Government held Great Britain to the engagement of 1911, which, according to the latter, could not be brought into effect, so long as the French Government failed and refused to live up to the conditions on which the adhesion of Great Britain had been made. It was contended by the British, and admitted by the French Government, that the capitulatory rights enjoyed by Great Britain in Morocco had never been given up and were still in force.
By a convention signed at Paris, on December 18, 1923 , by Great Britain, France and Spain, regarding the organization of the statute of the Tangier Zone, it was agreed that the Capitulations should be abolished in the Zone and that a Mixed Court should be established to replace the existing consular jurisdictions . The details of the new Mixed Court of Tangier were regulated by a special dahir annexed to the convention. According to the dahir, the Mixed Court should be composed of four titular members, including one French, one Spanish, and two British magistrates, and of a number of deputy members (membres adjoints), including subjects or citizens of each of the Powers signatory to the Act of Algeciras, except Germany, Austria and Hungary .
In 1913, the French Government requested the United States Secretary of State to recognize the French protectorate over Morocco and to renounce American consular jurisdiction in the Shereefian Empire . In his reply, dated February 13, 1914, Mr. John Bassett Moore, Acting Secretary of State, conditioned the recognition of the reforms adopted by the French Government in Morocco on the settlement of certain pending issues regarding American interests in Morocco . The negotiations went on until the War intervened. In 1915, the attention of the United States Government was called to the decision of the French Resident-General that pending the duration of a state of siege which had been declared, certain cases hitherto tried before the civil courts should be transferred to the French military courts, even if the offenders were citizens of a country enjoying capitulatory rights . Thereupon, Mr. F. L. Polk, Acting Secretary of State, took occasion to reassert the rights of the United States and instructed the American Ambassador at Paris to bring to the notice of the French Government the action of the French Resident-General in Morocco and "to protest against it in so far as it affects citizens of the United States" . Since that date, nothing further has been published as to the progress of the negotiations for the abrogation of American extraterritorial rights in Morocco .
The majority of the Powers have, however, relinquished their extraterritoriality in Morocco (French zone). These include Russia, January 15 (18), 1914 ; Spain, March 7, 1914 ; Norway, May 5, 1914 ; Greece, May 8 (21), 1914 ; Sweden, June 4, 1914 ; Switzerland, June 11, 1914 ; Denmark, May 12, 1915 ; Bolivia, June 21, 1915 ; Japan, July 14, 1915 ; Belgium, September 22, 1915 ; Italy, March 9, 1916 ; Portugal, April 6, 1916 ; the Netherlands, May 26, 1916 ; and Costa Rica, May 31, 1916 . All the declarations made by these Powers with France give as the ground for relinquishing their extraterritorial Jurisdiction in Morocco (French zone) the improved judicial system in the Shereefian Empire under French protection; they all begin with the statement, "Taking into consideration the guarantees of judicial equality offered to foreigners by the French Tribunals of the protectorate, etc."
By the Treaty of Versailles, June 28, 1919, Germany, having recognized the French protectorate in Morocco, agreed to accept all the consequences of its establishment, and thereby renounced the regime of Capitulations therein, such renunciation taking effect from August 3, 1914 . A similar renunciation was made by Austria in the Treaty of St. Germain, September 10, 1919 , and by Hungary in the Treaty of Trianon, June 4, 1920 .
In the Spanish, as in the French zone of Morocco, Great Britain and the United States do not seem to have made any express renunciation of their extraterritorial rights. All the other Powers, however, have definitely given up their privileges of jurisdiction there. These include France, November 17, 1914 ; Norway, March 9, 1915 ; Russia, May 4 (17), 1915 ; Sweden, May 5, 1915 ; Belgium, December 29, 1915 ; Denmark, January 29, 1916 ; Italy, November 28, 1916 ; Greece, May 17 (30), 1917 ; and Portugal, July 20, 1918 . The declarations made by these Powers with Spain, as in the case of the French zone, all mention the fact of the guarantees of judicial equality offered to foreigners by the Spanish tribunals in Morocco as justifying the abandonment of consular jurisdiction.
VI. EGYPT (^)
In Egypt, under Mehemet Ali and his successors, the privileges of the Capitulations received such an extension that they constituted a total departure from the terms of the Capitulations themselves, and, in effect, a gross violation of these treaties. The foreign consuls usurped power which was not conferred upon them, and altogether the situation presented a spectacle of an unfounded invasion of the sovereignty of the territorial power . (*D)
The abuses indulged in by the foreign consuls called forth the report of Nubar Pasha, Minister of Foreign Affairs, to the Khedive Ismail, appealing for the speedy amelioration of the situation . This report was transmitted to the Powers, and after eight years of protracted negotiation, the regime of the Mixed Courts was established in 1875 and went into operation on February 1, 1876. "The privilege of jurisdiction," says Scott," was very considerably modified by the institution of the Egyptian Mixed Tribunals in 1876. The principal result of the reform was to reduce the competence of the Consular Courts; but, although greatly restricted, the jurisdiction of the consuls was not abolished. They still retained their competence in questions of personal status, in actions where both parties were their nationals, and in cases of crime and delict where the accused was their fellow-subject" .
The régime set up in 1876 consists of three courts of first instance, which have their seats respectively in Alexandria, Cairo and Mansourah, and a court of appeal at Alexandria .
"The Court of First Instance at Alexandria has a Bench of eighteen judges, twelve of whom are foreigners and six natives; the court of Cairo has thirteen foreign and six native judges; the Mansourah court has six foreign and three native judges; while the Court of Appeal has a Bench of fifteen judges, ten of whom are foreign and five native" . All these judges are appointed by the Egyptian Government, but to assure the competence of the foreign judges, the latter must be nominated by their own governments . These judges, whether native or foreign, are all declared to be irremovable, thus guaranteeing their absolute independence .
The civil jurisdiction of the Mixed Courts extends to all cases, except those of personal status, between foreigners and natives and between foreigners of different nationalities; to all cases of immovable property between natives and foreigners or between foreigners of the same nationality or of different nationalities . Owing to the incompetence of the native courts during the early days of the Mixed Court régime, the jurisdiction of the Mixed Tribunals has been considerably extended by judicial interpretation, so as to cover cases which would not come under their competence, if strict regard were had to the original articles of the Réglement. (*E)
Thus, by applying the theory of "mixed interest," it has been held that cases involving the interest of a third party, even if they may be between persons of the same nationnality, are cognizable by the Mixed Courts . The penal jurisdiction of the Mixed Courts embraces police contraventions committed by one foreigner against another or a native, and certain delicts and crimes committed by or against the judges and officials of the Mixed Courts .
In civil matters, the First Instance Courts are divided into (1) the Summary Court, (2) the Civil Court, (3) the Commercial Court, and (4) the Tribunal des Référés. The Summary Court consists of one judge, whose duty is first to conciliate parties in dispute, and, in case this is impossible, to decide some civil cases of a certain value in first instance and others in last resort. The Civil Court is composed of five judges, three of whom are foreign and two native, and takes cognizance, in first instance, of all civil cases not deferred to the Summary Court, and, on appeal, of all judgments rendered by the last court in all matters other than possessory actions and actions of restoration (reintégrande) and actions respecting leases of wakf lands, which are taken before the Court of Appeal. The Commercial Court is made up of five judges, three foreign and two native, and decides, in first instance, all cases which are considered as commercial by the rules of the Commercial Code, other than those which are deferred to the Summary Court. The Tribunal des Référés is held by one judge, who shall decide after hearing both parties, in civil as well as commercial matters, what summary measures are to be taken without prejudice to the question at issue, and on the execution of judgments without prejudice to questions of interpretation .
Penal matters are of three kinds, police contraventions, delicts and crimes. The court for the contraventions consists of a single foreign judge. For the delicts, a Correctional Court is created, of which two judges are foreign and one native, assisted by four assessors. The latter should all be of foreign nationality, if the defendant is a foreigner. If the defendant is native, half of the assessors should be native. Finally, the Court of Assizes, which is competent to try crimes, consists of three judges of the Court of Appeal, of whom two are foreign and one native. The Court of Assizes is assisted by twelve jurymen, half of whom should be of the nationality of the defendant .
By a notification of the British Foreign Office, December 18, 1914, Egypt was placed under British protection, and it was declared that "His Majesty's Government will adopt all measures necessary for the defense of Egypt and the protection of its inhabitants and interests" . Since that date, a number of Powers have relinquished their consular jurisdiction in Egypt. These include Greece , Portugal , Norway , Sweden  and Denmark . According to the Treaty of Versailles, June 28, 1919, Germany (*F) recognized the British protectorate over Egypt and renounced her extraterritorial rights therein, the renunciation taking effect from August 4, 1914 . A similar renunciation was made by Austria in the Treaty of St. Germain, September 10, 1919 .
At the beginning of 1922, the British Government declared the termination of the British protectorate over Egypt and granted its independence . (*G)
By taking this action, the British Government did not intend to alter the status quo with regard to the protection of foreign interests in Egypt pending the conclusion of a formal agreement between the British and Egyptian Governments . Under these circumstances, the régime of extraterritoriality in its modified form is retained by those Powers which have not expressly renounced it .
Notes by the Author (^)
 Cf. Chapter V.
 State Papers, vol lxxxii, p. 653.
 Ibid., p. 654; U. S. Foreign Relations, 1890, p. 476.
 State Papers, vol. xcix, p. 461.
 Ibid., vol. ci, p. 78.
 Ibid., p. 649.
 Parliamentary Papers, 1890 [C. 6130], Africa, no. 9 (1890), p. 2.
 Exchange of Notes, March 13/18, 1904, State Papers, vol. xcix, pp. 357 et seq.
 Ibid., vol. ci, p. 234.
 Ibid., p. 235.
 Malloy, vol. i, p. 795.
 U.S. Foreign Relations, 1907, pt. i, p. 574.
 State Papers, vol. xcix, p. 375.
 Ibid., vol. ci, p. 237.
 Ibid., p. 233.
 Ibid., p. 232.
 Ibid., p. 237.
 Ibid., vol. xci, p. 71.
 Treaty of May 18, 1900, State Papers, vol. cvi, pp. 521, 522.
 Ibid., vol. ci, p. 656.
 Ibid., vol. cxii, p. 580.
 Treaty of May 12, 1881, Rouard de Card, op. cit., p. 232.
 Parliamentary Papers, 1884 [C. 3843)], Tunis, no. 1 (1884), p. 15.
 Ibid., p. 18.
 Earl Granville to Mr. Plunkett, Sep. 13, 1882, Parliamentary Papers, 1884 [C. 3843], Tunis, no. 1 (1884).
 M. Tissot to M. le President du Conseil, Ministre des Affaires Étrangères, Oct. 5. 1882, Publications of the Permanent Court of In-ternational Justice (hereafter referred to as P. P. C. I. J.), series c, no. 2, add. vol., p. 287.
 Earl Granville to Mr. Plunkett, Oct. 16, 1882, Parliamentary Paper cited.
 Ibid. Cf. Le Ministre des Affaires Étrangères a M. Tissot. May 8, 1883, P. P. C. I. J., loc. cit., p. 289.
 Earl Granville to M. Tissot, June 20, 1883, Parliamentary Paper cited.
 Reply to Memorandum annexed to the Letter from the Foreign Office of June 20, 1883, ibid.
 Earl Granville to M. Waddington, Nov. 16, 1883, Parliamentary Paper cited.
 M. Waddingtou to Earl Granville, Dec. 29, 1883, ibid.
 Earl Granville to Dr. Arpa, Dec. 28, 1883, ibid.
 State Papers, vol. lxxiv, p. 695.
 Documents diplomatiques, revision des traités tunisiens, 1881-1897, p. 87.
 Documents diplomatiques, Afrique, 1881-1898, p. 88.
 See P. P. C. I. J., series c, no. 2, add. vol., pp. 120, 121, 158, 159
 P. P. C. I. J., loc. cit., p. 160.
 Ibid., p. 164.
 Ibid., pp. 167-168.
 Ibid., pp. 170-173.
 P. P. C. I. J., loc. cit., pp. 178-184.
 Ibid., p. 189.
 Acting Consul-General Andrews to the Earl of Balfour, July 22, 1922, ibid., p. 192.
 Ibid., pp. 198, 199.
 Sir Milne Cheetham to M. Poincaré, Aug. 1, 1922, ibid., pp. 200-201.
 M. Poincare to Sir Milne Cheetham, Aug. 5. 1922, ibid., p. 204.
 Ibid., p. 205.
 League of Nations, Official Journal, 3rd. yr., no. ii (pt. ii), p. 1206.
 P. P. C. I. J., series b. no. 4, p. 8.
 Ibid., p. 32.
 Ibid., ser. C, no. 2, add. vol., p. 30
 Ibid., pp. 41-44.
 See the Decrees of Feb. 1, Aug. 30 and Oct. 16, 1897, ibid., pp. 333, 337, 338.
 Ibid., pp. 234-250.
 Ibid., p. 459.
 P. P. C. I. J., series b, no. 4, p. 29.
 Ibid., p. 32.
 Great Britain, Treaty Series, no. 11 (1923).
 Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Italian Ambassador, at Paris, Feb. 9, 1883, Archives diplomatiques, 1884, vol. iv, pp. 263, 264.
 Ibid., p. 282; 1885, vol. i, pp. 65, 69, 72-74, 74-77, 80, 84-88.
 State Papers, vol. lxxv, p. 469.
 Aide-Mémoire of the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Ambassador of France, July 13, 1883, Archives diplomatiques, 1884, vol. iv, p. 281; also The Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Italian Consul-General at Tunis, ibid., 1885, vol. i, pp. 83-84.
 Documents diplomatiques, revision des traités tunisiens, 1881-1897, p. 47.
 Ibid., p. 74.
 Malloy, vol. i, p. 545.
 Doc. dip. cited, p. 73.
 Ibid., p. 75.
 Ibid., p. 76.
 Ibid., p. 77.
 Ibid., p. 78.
 Documents diplomatiques, Afrique. 1881-1898, pp. 85, 87, 88.
 State Papers, vol. cvi. p. 1023.
 Art. 1, ibid., p. 1025.
 "Article 2. His Britannic Majesty's Government have no present intention of proposing to the Powers any changes in the system of the Capitulations, or in the judicial organization of Egypt. In the event of their considering it desirable to introduce in Egypt reforms tending to assimilate the Egyptian legislative system to that in force in other civilized countries, the Government of the French Republic will not refuse to entertain any such proposals, on the understanding that His Britannic Majesty's Government will agree to entertain the suggestions that the Government of the French Republic may have to make to them with a view of introducing similar reforms in Morocco." P. P. C. I. J., ser. c, no. 2, add. vol., p. 501.
 Lord Hardinge to M. Poincaré, Jan. 10, 1922. P. P. C. I. J., series c, no. 2, add. vol. p. 165.
 Same to Same, Feb. 28, 1922, ibid., pp. 176-178.
 M. Poincaré to Lord Hardinge, April 7, 1922, ibid., pp. 185, 186.
 Ibid., p. 191.
 "Art. 9. In order to avoid, as far as possible, diplomatic representa-tions, the French Government will urge the Moorish Government to refer to an arbitrator, nominated ad hoc in each case by agreement between the French consul and the consul of the Power interested, or, failing them, by the two Governments, such complaints brought by foreign subjects against the Moorish authorities or agents acting in the capacity of Moorish authorities as shall not have been found capable of adjustment through the intermediary of the French consul and the consul of the Power interested. This mode of procedure shall remain in force until such time as a judicial system, founded on the general principles embodied in the legislation of the Powers interested, shall have been introduced, which shall ultimately, by agreement between those Powers, replace the consular courts." Ibid., p. 508.
 Ibid., p. 30.
 P. P. C. I. J., loc. cit., p. 54.
 Ibid., p. 252.
 Ibid., p. 464.
 Ibid., pp. 471-473. Draft convention referred to given on p. 518.
 Great Britain, Treaty Series, no. 23 (1924). Ratifications were deposited May 14, 1924, ibid., p. 3.
 Arts. 13, 48, ibid., pp. 9, 41.
 Art. I, ibid., p. 64.
 U.S. Foreign Relations, 1914, pp. 905, 906.
 Ibid., pp. 907-914.
 Chargé Blake to the Secretary of State, Dec. 8, 1915, U.S. Foreign Relations, 1915, p. 1097.
 The Acting Secretary of State to Ambassador Sharp, Dec. 29, 1915, ibid., p. 1098.
 In reply to an inquiry addressed by the author, the Department of State informs him that the judicial status of American citizens in Morocco has not changed since 1913. "The recognition of the French protectorate," says the Department's letter, "by a note of January 15, 1917, from the Secretary of State to the French Ambassador at Washington was given upon the understanding that the question of the recognition of the protectorate was distinct from that of the modification of extraterritorial rights." The American Government, moreover, has not adhered to the Tangier Convention of Dec. 18, 1923.
 State Papers, vol. cvii, p. 821.
 Ibid., vol. cix, p. 939.
 Ibid., vol. cvii, p. 818.
 Ibid., vol. cviii, p. 876.
 Ibid., p. 877.
 State Papers, vol. cxiii, p. 1042.
 Ibid., vol. cix, p. 913.
 Ibid., p. 872.
 Ibid., p. 939.
 Ibid., p. 871.
 Ibid., vol. cxiv, p. 767.
 Ibid., vol. cx, p. 878.
 Ibid., p. 875.
 Ibid., p. 835.
 Art. 142, Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany (London, 1919), p. 73.
 Art. 97, Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Austria (London, 1921), p. 41.
 Art. 81, Great Britain, Treaty Series, no. 10 (1920), p. 23.
 State Papers, vol. cviii, p. 470.
 Ibid., vol. civ, p. 986.
 Ibid., p. 1011.
 Ibid., vol. cxii, p. 1165.
 Ibid., vol. cix, p. 871.
 Ibid., vol. cx, p. 842.
 Ibid., p. 915.
 Ibid., vol. cxii, p. 1108.
 Ibid., vol. cxiv, p. 950.
 Scott, The Law Affecting Foreigners in Egypt (rev. ed., Edinburgh, 1908), pp. 196-200.
 Documents diplomatiques, no. xiii, Nov. 1869, p. 77.
 Scott, op cit., p. 209.
 Réglement d'Organisation Judiciaire pour les Procès Mixtes en Egypte, tit. i, ch. i, arts, 1, 3, State Papers, vol. lxvi, p. 593.
 Scott, op. cit., p. 210.
 Réglement, tit. i, ch. 1, art. 5, State Papers, vol. lxvi, p. 593.
 Réglement, tit. i, ch. i, art. 19, ibid., p. 595.
 Réglement, tit. i, ch. i, art. 19, as modified by Decree (1) of March 26, 1900, art. 1, ibid., p. 594; vol. xciv, p. 882.
 Scott, op. cit., pp. 219 et seq.
 Réglement, tit. ii, ch. i, arts. 6-9, State Papers, vol. lxiv, pp. 598-9.
 Code de Procédure Civile et Commerciale Mixte, tit. i, ch. i, arts. 26, 29, 32, 33, 34, Wathelet et Brunton, Codes Egyptiens (Brussels, 1919-20), vol. i, pp. 338-340; Réglement, tit. i, ch. i, art. 14, State Papers, vol. lxvi, p. 594; Decree (11) of March 26, 1900, art. 33, ibid., vol. xcii, p. 898. Cf. Scott, op. cit., pp. 213-214.
 Réglement, tit. ii, ch. i, § 1, State Papers, vol. lxvi, pp. 597-8; Decree (3) of March 26, 1900, art. 3, ibid., vol. xcii, p. 884. Cf. Scott, op. cit., p. 215.
 State Papers, vol. xviii, p. 185.
 Sep. 4, 1920, ibid., vol. cxiii, p. 367.
 Dec. 9, 1920, ibid., p. 424.
 April 22, 1921, ibid., vol. cxiv, p. 350.
 July 28, 1921, ibid., p. 390.
 July 14, 1921, ibid., p. 199.
 Art. 147, The Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany (London, 1919), p. 74.
 Art. 102, The Treaty of Peace, between the Allied and Associated Powers and Austria (London, 1921), p. 42.
 See Declaration to Egypt, Feb. 21, 1922, Parl. Pap., 1922 [Cmd. 1592], Egypt, no. I (1922), p. 29; Circular Despatch to His Majesty's Re-presentatives Abroad, March 15, 1922, ibid. [Cmd. 1617], Egypt, no. 2 (1922).
 In the Declaration to Egypt, it was stated that "the protection of foreign interests in Egypt and the protection of minorities" was one of the matters absolutely reserved to the discretion of the British Government pending the conclusion of an agreement with Egypt, but that until then the status quo should remain intact. The Circular Despatch of March 15 announced that "the termination of the British protectorate over Egypt involves, however, no change in the status quo as regards the position of other Powers in Egypt itself." See Parl. Pap. cited.
 So far as the United States Government is concerned, it still maintains its extraterritorial rights in Egypt. In reply to a letter of inquiry addressed by the author, the Department of State informs him that "in recognizing the British protectorate over Egypt in April, 1919, this Government reserved for further discussion the question of the modification of any rights belonging to the United States which might be deemed to be affected by the recognition," and that "this Government's recognition of the independence of Egypt in April, 1922, was made subject to the maintenance of the rights which had theretofore existed."