English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Legal reasoning about British sovereignty over its colonies drew on an idea in British law: that a subject was in a feudal relationship of obligation to the British sovereign. When British subjects made land tenure arrangements with native authorities beyond Britain, they were understood to be entering into a feudal relationship with a foreign sovereign – a potentially treasonous action. This article compares British responses to John Batman’s 1835 feoffment with the Kulin in Port Phillip and the 1855 Royal Commission into James Brooke’s feudal agreement with the Sultan of Brunei. The British government understood Batman’s agreement with the Kulin to have placed Batman as a subject of the Kulin. In comparison the Commission did not censure Brooke. The difference between the two cases was in Britain’s conception of its interests in each region. Brooke’s deal did not threaten British interests, but Batman’s deal with the Kulin undermined colonial sovereignty.

Feudalism and Indigenous Sovereignty: The Batman Treaty and James Brooke’s Sarawak Regime