Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 7.djvu/369

Rh In 1783 Domesday Book was published in two volumes, and in 1816 a volume of indices was printed by the Record Commission, to which a very valuable &quot;general introduc tion was prefixed.&quot; During the latter year another volume appeared containing the Exon Domesday, and the Inquiaitio Eliensis, already noticed; the Winton Domesday, comprising lands in Winchester between and ; and the Boldon Book, or Survey of the Palatinate of Durham in. Within the last few years the whole of Domesday has been issued in parts, each part comprising a county, and printed by the process of photozincography, under the scholarly superintendence of Mr W. B. Sanders, one of the assistant keepers of the Public Records.

1em  DOMICILE, in law, may be defined generally as the place of a man s permanent abode ; but a precise definition of the word is a matter of acknowledged difficulty. Its use in jurisprudence is to fix the legal rights of a person in certain cases where it is felt that the application of the law of the country to which he owes allegiance on the one hand, or of the country in which for the moment he happens to be, would be attended with inconvenience. Thus an English citizen who, for purposes of business, health, &c., has for many years permanently resided in France, has, let us suppose, died during a casual visit to Denmark. The question would arise under which of the three systems of law English, French, or German the validity of his will, the succession to his estate, &c., would be determined. Or, again, a French subject habitually resident in England, but not naturalized, might sue for a dissolution of his marriage in the matrimonial courts of this country, and it would be generally admitted that our courts in such a case were entitled to exercise jurisdiction, and that their decision ought to be received as determining the status of the persons concerned, just as fully as if they had been natural- born subjects of the Crown. In such cases there is a general agreement that a man s legal character, so to speak, should be determined by his domicile, rather than by his political nationality or his residence for the time being. We shall notice briefly the conditions of residence under which domicile may generally be established. The Roman jurists defined domicile to be the place &quot;ubi quis larem rerumque ac fortunarum summam constituit : unde rursus non sit discessurus si nihil avocet : unde cum profectus est, peregrinari videtur : quo si rediit peregrinari jam destitit.&quot; The general result of the definitions to be found in writers on the civil law is to make that place the domicile which may be described as the head-quarters of the person concerned, or, as it is expressed in the Code Civile, &quot; le lieu ou il a son principal etablissement.&quot; But here characteristic difficulties embarrassed the civil lawyers, A man s habits of life might point equally to two places as his head-quarters. It might be impossible to say which of them was the principal seat of his business. Which of the two in such a case is the legal domicile. Or can the same person at the same time have two domiciles ? The two essential things are residence and the intention of remain ing. Story s definition is, &quot; That place is properly the domicile of a person in which his habitation is fixed without any present intention of removing therefrom.&quot; Change of residence not intended to be permanent would not create a new domicile. Cases will readily suggest themselves in which the question of intention may be surrounded with difficulties. The following summary follows the general rules laid down by Story for determining the domicile of a person (Conflict of Laws, Sec. 46). The child takes the domicile of the father, except in the case of an illegitimate child, which takes the domicile of the mother. Minors follow the changes of the father s domicile ; and a married woman follows the domicile of her husband. The place of residence is prima facie the domicile ; and when a person removes to another place with the intention of making it hisjoermanent residence, that place becomes his domicile. When a person has removed to another place with the intention of remain ing there for an indefinite time, that is his domicile, though he may have a general intention of returning at some future time. In general the domicile of a married man is the place where his family permanently resides, even though he habitually transacts his business elsewhere. When a married man has two places of residence, that will be his domicile &quot; which he himself selects or describes or deems to be his home, or which appears to be the centre of his affairs, or where he votes or exercises the rights and duties of a citizen.&quot; An unmarried man s domicile is where he transacts his business or exercises municipal duties or privileges. Compulsory detention will not create a domicile. A domicile once established remains until a new one has been acquired; but ambassadors resident in a foreign country retain their domicile of nationality. To these general rules may be added some of the prin ciples laid down in recent cases by the English courts. The distinction between the question of domicile and that of naturalization or allegiance is clearly pointed out in Haldane v. Eckford (Law Reports, 8 Equity, 631) where it is said that to effect a change of domicile it is not necessary that a man should do all in his power to divest himself of his original nationality (exuere patriam), it being sufficient that there should be a change of residence of a permanent character voluntarily assumed. And in Udny v. Udny (Law Reports, 1 House of Lords, Scotch Appeals) Lord Westbury said : &quot; To suppose that for a change of domicile there must be a change of natural allegiance is to confound the political and civil status, to destroy the distinction between patria and domicilium.&quot; So the lord chancellor : &quot; A man may change his domicile as often, as he pleases, but not his allegiance.&quot; In the British empire, composed as it is of communities having each its own system of law, there may be numberless domiciles under one allegiance. In the first of the cases above mentioned the question was as to the domicile of a testator, whose domicile of origin was Scotch, who was a servant of the East India Company for thirty-three years, and who on leaving India went to Jersey, where he lived continuously for twenty-five years till his death. The Scotch domicile reverted on his leaving India, but was held to have been lost by the residence in Jersey, where a new domicile was acquired. This is a fair sample of the cases which frequently arise in British courts on the question of domicile. In the second of the cases mentioned above it was held to be &quot; a settled principle that no man shall be without a domicile, and to secure this end the law attributes to every individual as soon as he is born the domicile of his father, if the child be legitimate, and the domicile of his mother, if the child be illegitimate. This is called the domicile of origin, and is involuntary. It is the creation of the law, not of the party. It may be extinguished by act of law, as for example by sentence of death or exile for life, which destroys the status civilis of the criminal ; but it cannot be destroyed by the will and act of the party. Domicile of 