Page:EB1911 - Volume 25.djvu/543

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

said of Canada. It is true the British colonies have not the power of declaring war or peace, or regulating the foreign policy of the empire; and the Crown may disallow a measure passed by the dominion parliament (J. G. Bourinot, Constitution of Canada, 1888, p. 75; A. H. F. Lefroy, Legislative Power in Canada, 244). Colonial legislatures are said to have delegated powers. It is more accurate to say that as to certain matters the legislature of the Canadian Dominion is sovereign, and as to certain others that it is not (Lefroy, 244; Quick and Garran, Australian Commonwealth, 328; Dicey, 106); and as to some matters they are in fact, if not in form, universitates superiorem non recognoscentes (Quick and Garran, 319); or that they are states in process of making. Occasionally the expression “subject of a colony” is now used (Low v. Routledge, L.R. 1 Ch. 42; Lefroy, Legislative Power in Canada, 329). It has been decided by the judicial committee of the Privy Council that the colonial legislatures are not mere delegates of the Imperial parliament (A. B. Keith, Responsible Government in the Colonies, p. 81). At all events, the self-governing colonies may be classed as “half sovereign states” or “quasi-sovereign.”

Many attempts have been made to enumerate the attributes of sovereignty, i.e. the regalia, prerogatives, &c., as they were Attributes of Sovereignty. called. For example, Bodin gives a list of the properties of majestas or sovereignty: (a) “Legem universis, &c., singulis civibus dare posse; (b) bellum indicere aut pacem inire; (c) to appoint and change magistrates; (d) power of final appeal; (e) power of pardon; (f) raising revenue; (g) coining money” (De republica, vol. i. ch. 10). Leibnitz, with the middle ages in view, divides the attributes or faculties into two classes: regalia majora and regalia minora. Hobbes (Leviathan), analysing these attributes, enumerates twelve attributes. “These,” he says, “are the marks which make the essence of sovereignty, and which are the marks whereby a man may discover in what man, or assembly of men, the sovereign power is placed or resideth.” He also describes them as “inseparable rights.” Bluntschli (Allgemeine Staatslehre, i. 575) enumerates these attributes: (a) right of recognition of majestas; (b) independence; (c) power to determine constitution; (d) right of legislation; (e) action through deposed organs; (f) irresponsibility. All of these enumerations are open to the objection that they merely describe the action of the state at a particular time, or indicate a theory of what an ideal state should be.

Authorities.—The literature of the subject is immense; every book on political science, from Republic of Plato and the Politics of Aristotle, has dealt with or touched sovereignty. A few of the chief modern works are: J. C. Bluntschli, Allgemeine Staatslehre (Munich, 1852); Otto Gierke, Das deutsche Genossenschaftsrecht (Berlin, 1863-1881); J. Austin, Lectures on Jurisprudence (3rd ed., London, 1869); Sir H. Maine, “Minute on the Kathiawar States” (1864; printed in Life and Speeches, p. 320) and Early History of Institutions (1875); P. Laband, Staatsrccht des deutschen Reiches (Freiburg-im-Breisgau and Tübingen, 1876); R. von Mohl, Encyclopädie der Staatswissenschaften (2nd ed., Tübingen, 1872); O. Gierke, Johannes Althusius (Breslau, 1880); G. Jellinek, Die Lehre von den Staatsverbindungen (Vienna, 1882); G. Meyer, Lehrbuch des deutschen Staatsrechts (Leipzig, 1878); H. Rosin, Souveranitätstaat (1883); K. Gareis, Allgemeines Staatsrecht (1882); T. M. Cooley, Constitutional Limitations (6th ed., 1890); Jellinek, Ueber Staatsfragmente (1896); J. B. Westerkamp, Staatenbund und Bundesstaat (Leipzig, 1892); J. R. Green's Works (London, 1892); W. W. Fowler, City State of the Greeks and Romans (London, 1893); Salomon, L'Occupation des territoires sans maîtres (Paris, 1896); A. V. Dicey, Law of the Constitution (6th ed., 1902); X. Combothecra, La Conception juridique de l'état (1899); H. Rehm, Allgemeine Staatslehre (1899); Franklin H. Giddings, Principles of Sociology (3rd ed., New York, 1899); J. W. Burgess, Political Science and Constitutional Law (Boston, 1899); C. E. Merriam, History of the Theory of Sovereignty since Rousseau (New York, 1900); J. Bryce, Studies in History and Jurisprudence (2. Essay x. 1901); K. Bornhak, Einseitige Abhängigkeitsverhältnisse unter den modernen Staaten (1896); W. W. Willoughby, The Nature of the State (New York, 1896); Clauss, Die Lehre von den Staatsdienstbarkeiten (1894); Bosanquet, The Philosophical Theory of the State (1899); J. B. Moore, Digest of International Law (Washington, 1906), i. 18 seq.; “Notes on Sovereignty,” American Journal of International Law (1907), i. 105; W. B. Keith, Responsible Government in the Colonies (1909); T. Baty, International Law (1909).

(J. M.)

SOWAR (Hind. and Pers. suwar, a horseman), the name in Anglo-Indian usage for a horse-soldier belonging to the cavalry troops of the native armies of British India and the feudatory states. It is also used more specifically of a mounted orderly, escort or guard.

SOWERBY, JAMES (1757-1822), English natural-history artist, was born in London on the 21st of March 1757. He became a student at the Royal Academy, and subsequently taught drawing, but soon applied his art to the illustration of botanical and conchological works, and became distinguished by the publication of his English Botany (36 vols., 1790-1814), and British Mineralogy (5 vols., 1804-1817). He likewise planned and carried out for a number of years the classic geological work intended to describe and illustrate the British fossils, and entitled The Mineral Conchology of Great Britain (7 vols., 1812-1846). This was issued in parts, with the assistance first of his elder son, J. de C. Sowerby, and, after J. Sowerby's death (Oct. 25, 1822), of his second son, G. B. Sowerby, both the sons being themselves expert palaeontologists. The Sowerby collection, consisting of about 5000 fossils, was purchased by the British Museum in 1860.

The elder son, James de Carle Sowerby (1787-1871), was in 1838 one of the founders of the Royal Botanic Society, and was its secretary for thirty years. He supplied the plates and part of the text to the Supplement to English Botany (4 vols., 1831-1849); but his most important work related to palaeontology, as he identified and in many cases described the invertebrate fossils for papers by Buckland, Sedgwick, Fitton, Murchison and others in the Transactions of the Geological Society of London.

The younger son, George Brettingham Sowerby (1788-1854) was author of The Genera of Recent and Fossil Shells (1820-1825), and one of the editors of the Zoological Journal (1825-1826). His son, G. B. Sowerby (1812-1884), author of the Conchological Manual (1839; 4th ed., 1852), and grandson G. B. Sowerby (b. 1843), a distinguished student of the Mollusca, inherited the family talent for natural history.

SOWERBY BRIDGE, an urban district in the Sowerby parliamentary division of the West Riding of Yorkshire, England, 3 m. S.W. of Halifax by the Lancashire & Yorkshire railway. It is situated on both sides of the river Calder, at the termination of the Rochdale canal. Christ Church, dating from 1526, was rebuilt in 1819. The town is almost entirely a growth of the second half of the 19th century. It possesses worsted and cotton mills, iron works, dye works and chemical works. The separate urban district of Sowerby adjoins to the south-west. Pop. (1901), Sowerby Bridge, 11,477; Sowerby, 3653.

SOWING (from “to sow,” O. Eng. säwan, cf. Du. zaaijen, Ger. säen, &c.; the root is seen in Lat. serere, cf. “seed”), in agriculture, the planting of seed for the raising of crops. The scattering of seed by hand is the simplest and oldest method of delivering seed to the earth, and is still preferred by some farmers and in certain circumstances. The sower carries the receptacle for the seed, a zinc “seed-lip,” seed-sheet or basket, slung over his shoulder, and walking up and down the ridges of the field scatters handfuls of grain with a semicircular sweep of the arm across the body. The “casts” must not overlap too much, the seed must not fall more thickly at one point of the cast than at another, and the standard of seeding per acre must be rigidly adhered to; hence manual-sowing demands considerable skill and experience. It is still preferred in some districts for the sowing of corn crops; and in some cases the plough is followed by a furrow-presser, the seed falling into the hollows made by it, though under ordinary circumstances the face of the field as left in “seams” by the furrow-slices from the plough is in a suitable condition for broadcasting. So well, indeed, is the ploughing done in many countries that broadcasting gives perfectly good results, and broadcasting machines reaching up to 15 ft. wide are in common use in place of hand-sowing, as these get over the ground more quickly and deposit the seed more regularly than an ordinary workman does by hand.