ensure that the legal safeguards protecting the Anglo-Irish Treaty could not be removed. The Irish leader, W. T. Cosgrave, helped defeat the amendment by sending a well-reasoned letter to the British Prime Minister, some of which was read aloud in the House of Commons. TheMorning Post, a leading unionist newspaper, praised it as a ‘trump card’ and it helped to settle nerves (124). One unionist Member of the Westminster Parliament, Arthur Shirley Benn, was so moved that he tore up the speech he had prepared supporting the amendment. The following year, Eamon de Valera came to power in Ireland, and he set about systematically dismantling the Treaty using that very same Statute of Westminster. The appeal to the Privy Council was not at the top of his agenda, which shows how little power it had exerted in reality, but it was not to survive for long. The Erne Fishery Case of 1927 was the last case to be brought before it, after which a constitutional amendment abolishing these appeals was passed in 1933. The British government’s reaction to the unilateral decision was hostile and the possibility of military intervention was discussed. But most people realised that intervention on such an obscure issue was never a viable option. By 1935 the decision had been vindicated, and the Privy Council itself confirmed that the Irish state was entitled to go about dismantling the Treaty. The Boston Herald took this correctly as confirmation of the sovereign status of the Irish state. In 1922 Lord Haldane had predicted that the Privy Council was ‘a disappearing body, but that it will be a long time before it will disappear altogether’ (165). This book shows how that process began and the forces that made it obsolete. As Mohr shows, Ireland became the first step to unilaterally abolish the appeal. As a Vice-President of the Irish Legal History Society, I welcome this publication on a largely ignored piece of Irish legal history as part of our series and congratulate Thomas Mohr on making a significant contribution to Irish and British legal scholarship.

中文翻译：

---

丹麦中世纪法律：斯堪尼亚、西兰和日德兰群岛的法律

确保保护《英爱条约》的法律保障不会被取消。爱尔兰领导人 WT Cosgrave 向英国首相发送了一封理由充分的信，帮助通过了修正案，其中一些信在下议院被大声宣读。领先的工会报纸《晨报》称赞它是一张“王牌”，它有助于安抚紧张情绪 (124)。威斯敏斯特议会的一位工会成员亚瑟·雪莉·本 (Arthur Shirley Benn) 非常感动，以至于撕掉了他准备好的支持修正案的演讲稿。第二年，埃蒙·德·瓦莱拉 (Eamon de Valera) 在爱尔兰上台，他开始使用同样的威斯敏斯特规约系统地废除该条约。诉诸枢密院并不是他的首要任务，可见它在现实中发挥的威力是多么的微乎其微，但也不是长久之计。1927 年的厄恩渔业案是最后一个案件，此后于 1933 年通过了废除这些上诉的宪法修正案。英国政府对单方面决定的反应充满敌意，并讨论了军事干预的可能性。但大多数人意识到，对这样一个晦涩的问题进行干预从来都不是一个可行的选择。到 1935 年，该决定已被证明是正确的，枢密院本身也确认爱尔兰有权废除该条约。《波士顿先驱报》正确地将此视为对爱尔兰国家主权地位的确认。1922 年，霍尔丹勋爵曾预测枢密院是“一个正在消失的机构，但它要完全消失还需要很长时间”（165）。这本书展示了这个过程是如何开始的，以及使它过时的力量。正如莫尔所示，爱尔兰成为单方面废除上诉的第一步。作为爱尔兰法律史协会的副主席，我欢迎这本关于爱尔兰法律史在很大程度上被忽视的出版物作为我们系列的一部分，并祝贺托马斯·莫尔为爱尔兰和英国的法律学术做出了重大贡献。