SAS Open Journals

Ekwueme, Ejike

Bagheri, Mahmood

Money Cleansing and the Effectiveness of FATF Coercive Measures: An Overview

Xi, Chao

Palmer, Michael

This is a provisional list of the published works of Professor AnthonyDicks SC (SOAS School of Law and Essex Court Chambers), whose
Obituary was published in Amicus Curiae in the Autumn 2019 issue. For
many years, Professor Dicks was a leading expert on issues of Chinese
law, but his writings were sometimes published in relatively inaccessible
outlets, and we feel that this compilation may assist those who wish to
read more of the work of Professor Dicks on Chinese law. We welcome any
information you might have on publications or materials not listed below:
contact chaoxi@cuhk.edu.hk and michael.palmer@sas.ac.uk.
Our list is republished with minor style amendments from the China
Quarterly, and we thank the editor and publishers of that journal for their
kind permission to republish. 
[A] REPORTS TO THE INSTITUTE OF CURRENT
WORLD AFFAIRS (1963-1968)
Available on the Institute of Current World Affairs website. 
♢ Chinese Law: An Inheritance?
♢ Exploratory Talks with Mr Lu
♢ Sinologues in Turin
♢ The China Trade Revisited
♢ Chinese Attitudes to International Law
♢ Staying in Hong Kong
♢ A New Leaf
♢ Sun v Wang: An Undivorce
♢ May Day in Peking
♢ A Discourse on Arbitration
♢ The Needle’s Eye
Amicus Curiae, Series 2, Vol 1, No 2, 310-16
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
THE PUBLISHED WORK OF
PROFESSOR ANTHONY DICKS
CHAO XI
CUHK Faculty Of Law
MICHAEL PALMER
IALS & SOAS (University of London; CUHK (HKIAPS))
310
Series 2, Vol 1, No 2
311Bibliography: The Published Work of Professor Anthony Dicks
Winter 2020
♢ Sick Men of China
♢ Raising the Stakes
♢ Some Chinese Entertainments
♢ Hong Kong and the Cultural Revolution
♢ A Dream of Eastern Wisdom
♢ Macao: Legal Fiction
♢ Macao: Gunboat Diplomacy
♢ The Hong Kong Situation I: Impasse
♢ The Pueblo: A Legal Speculation
♢ The Non-agreement in Action: Sino-Japanese Trade
[B] 1981-1982: A LEGAL OPINION SERIES
(CHINA TRADE REPORT)
Note: Entries in this section were all published under the title ‘A Legal
Opinion’ in the China Trade Reporter during the early years of China’s
economic reforms and re-embracement of more conventional ideas of
socialist legality. We point (sometimes very approximately) to the main
subject matter of each item by suggesting a short title, which is placed in
square brackets.
Dicks, Anthony (1981) ‘A Legal Opinion’ [Need for Codification in the
Economic and Civil Fields] XIX (April) China Trade Report 11.
Dicks, Anthony (1981) ‘A Legal Opinion’ [Expansion of Legal Publishing]
XIX (May) China Trade Report 13. 
Dicks, Anthony (1981) ‘A Legal Opinion’ [British Claims for Post-1949
Property Loss] XIX (June) China Trade Report 11. 
Dicks, Anthony (1981) ‘A Legal Opinion’ [Enterprise Registration System]
XIX (July) China Trade Report 11.
Dicks, Anthony (1981) ‘A Legal Opinion’ [Tensions between Economic
Planning and the Autonomy of Enterprises] XIX (August) China Trade
Report 11. 
Dicks, Anthony (1981) ‘A Legal Opinion’ [Contract Supervision] XIX
(September) China Trade Report 11. 
Dicks, Anthony (1981) ‘A Legal Opinion’ [Professional Legal Exchanges;
Questions of Sovereign Immunity] XIX (October) China Trade Report 11. 
Dicks, Anthony (1981) ‘A Legal Opinion’ [Distinguishing between
Government and Business] XIX (November) China Trade Report 11. 
Dicks, Anthony (1981) ‘A Legal Opinion’ [Dispute Settlement] XIX
(December) China Trade Report 11. 
312 Amicus Curiae
Series 2, Vol 1, No 2
Dicks, Anthony (1982) ‘A Legal Opinion’ [New Legislation] XX (February)
China Trade Report 11. 
Dicks, Anthony (1982) ‘A Legal Opinion’ [Economic Contract Law] XX
(March) China Trade Report 11. 
Dicks, Anthony (1982) ‘A Legal Opinion’ [Economic Contracts and
Disputes] XX (April) China Trade Report 11. 
Dicks, Anthony (1982)  ‘A Legal Opinion’ [Civil Procedure Law and Other
Developments] XX (May) China Trade Report 11 
Dicks, Anthony (1982) ‘A Legal Opinion’ [Draft Constitution] XX (June)
China Trade Report 11. 
Dicks, Anthony (1982) ‘A Legal Opinion’ [Unpublished Legislation] XX
(July) China Trade Report 11. 
Dicks, Anthony (1982) ‘A Legal Opinion’ [Role of Law in the Chinese
Economy] XX (August) China Trade Report 13. 
Dicks, Anthony (1982) ‘A Legal Opinion’ [Enterprise Regulations] XX
(September) China Trade Report 13. 
Dicks, Anthony (1982) ‘A Legal Opinion’ [Chines Communist Party Self-
regulation] XX (October) China Trade Report 13. 
Dicks, Anthony (1982) ‘A Legal Opinion’ [Regulating Marine Pollution ] XX
(November) China Trade Report 13. 
Dicks, Anthony (1982)  ‘A Legal Opinion’ [Regulating Banking] XX
(December) China Trade Report 13. 
Dicks, Anthony (1983) XXI (January) ‘A Legal Opinion’ [The Constitution
1982] China Trade Report 13. 
Dicks, Anthony (1983) ‘A Legal Opinion’ [Banking Innovations] XXI
(February) China Trade Report 13. 
Dicks, Anthony (1983) ‘A Legal Opinion’ [Legal Development and the
Provisions of an International Convention] XXI (March) China Trade
Report 13. 
Dicks, Anthony (1983)  ‘A Legal Opinion’ [Economic Legislation] XXI (April)
China Trade Report 13. 
Dicks, Anthony (1983) ‘A Legal Opinion’ [People’s Insurance Company of
China] XXI (May) China Trade Report 11. 
Dicks, Anthony (1983)  ‘A Legal Opinion’ [State Immunity] XXI (June)
China Trade Report 13. 
Dicks, Anthony (1983) ‘A Legal Opinion’ [Regulating Enterprises] XXI
(August) China Trade Report 13. 
313Bibliography: The Published Work of Professor Anthony Dicks
Winter 2020
Dicks, Anthony (1983) ‘A Legal Opinion’ [Collectively-owned Enterprises
XXI (September) China Trade Report 13. 
Dicks, Anthony (1983) ‘A Legal Opinion’ [Maritime Safety] XXI (October)
China Trade Report 13. 
Dicks, Anthony (1983) ‘A Legal Opinion’ [Equity Joint Ventures] XXI
(November) China Trade Report 13. 
Dicks, Anthony (1983) ‘A Legal Opinion’ [Criminal Justice] XXI (December)
China Trade Report 13. 
Dicks, Anthony (1984) ‘A Legal Opinion’ [Practical Experience in Legal
Development] XXII (January) China Trade Report 13. 
Dicks, Anthony (1984)  ‘A Legal Opinion’ [Legal Services] XXII (February)
China Trade Report 13. 
Dicks, Anthony (1984) ‘A Legal Opinion’ [Particularized Legislation] XXII
(March) China Trade Report 13. 
[C] JOURNAL ARTICLES
Dicks, Anthony (1974) ‘A New Model for Chinese Legislation: The 1972
Shipping Regulations’ 57 (January/March) China Quarterly 63-83. 
Dicks, Anthony (1974) ‘The Position of Hong Kong and Macao in Recent
Chinese Legislation’ 4(2) Hong Kong Law Journal 151-61.
Dicks, Anthony (1983) ‘Treaty, Grant, Usage or Sufferance—Some Legal
Aspects of the Status of Hong Kong’ Hong Kong Briefing 95 (September)
China Quarterly 427-55. 
Dicks, Anthony (1989) ‘The Chinese Legal System: Reforms in the Balance
The People’s Republic of China After 40 Years’ 119 (September) China
Quarterly 540-76. 
Dicks, Anthony R (1995) ‘Compartmentalized Law and Judicial Restraint:
An Inductive View of Some Jurisdictional Barriers to Reform’ China's
Legal Reforms’) 141 (March) China Quarterly 82-109 (Special Issue:
Guest Editor, Stanley Lubman) republished as: Anthony R Dicks,
(1996) ‘Compartmentalized Law and Judicial Restraint: An Inductive
View of Some Jurisdictional Barriers to Reform’ in Stanley Lubman (ed)
China’s Legal Reforms Oxford: Clarendon Paperbacks (Oxford
University Press) 82-109.
314 Amicus Curiae
Series 2, Vol 1, No 2
[D] BOOK CHAPTERS
Dicks, Anthony (1969) ‘The Law and Practice of Hong Kong and Foreign
Investment’ in Vincent Shepherd (ed) Roundtable Conference on
International Law Problems in Asia Hong Kong: Hong Kong University
Press 153-64.
Dicks, Anthony (1974) ‘The People’s Republic of China’ in Robert Starr (ed)
East–West Business Transactions New York: Praeger Publishers 391-
446.
Dicks, Anthony (1977) ‘Some Aspects of Maritime Law and Practice’ in
Victor H Li (ed) Law and Politics in China’s Foreign Trade Seattle and
London: University of Washington Press 249-69.
Dicks, A R (1983) ‘Some Problems of Maritime Law,’ in J A Cohen (ed)
Legal Aspects of Doing Business in China New York: Practising Law
Institute 331–71.
Dicks, Anthony R (1984) ‘Macao: Legal Fiction and Gunboat Diplomacy’
in Göran Aijmer (ed) Leadership on the China Coast London: Curzon
Press 90-128.
Dicks, Anthony (1990) ‘New Lamps for Old: The Evolving Legal Position of
Islam in China, with Special Reference to Family Law’ in Chibli Mallat
and Jane Connors (eds) Islamic Family Law London: Graham &
Trotman.
Dicks, Anthony (1992) ‘Negotiable and Analogous Instruments and Other
Documents Embodying Payment Obligations’ Part XIV/Appendix to
David M Edwards CMG, JP (Chair) Report of the Working Party on Legal
and Procedural Arrangements between Hong Kong and China in Civil
and Commercial Matters, Hong Kong, 13 October.
Dicks, Anthony R (2000) ‘The Law-making Functions of the Chinese
Judiciary: Filling Holes in the Civil Law,’ in Ian Edge (ed) Comparative
Law in Global Perspective, Ardsley NY: Transnational Publishers.
Dicks, Anthony (2012) ‘The Ownership of Buddhist Temples and the Civil
Status of the Clergy in China’ in Clara Bulfoni (ed) Tradizioni Religiose
e Trasformazioni dell’ Asia Contemporanea Milan and Rome:
Ambrosiana and Bulzoni.
Dicks, Anthony (2013) ‘Introduction’ in La Famigli Nelle Culture e Nella
Societa Dell ‘Asia (Family in Asian Cultures and Societies) Milan and
Rome: Veneranda Biblioteca Ambrosiana & Bulzoni Editore.
Dicks, Anthony (2014) ‘Buddhism and Law in China: Qing Dynasty to the
Present’ in Rebecca Redwood French & Mark A Nathan (eds) Buddhism
and Law: An Introduction New York: Cambridge University Press,
chapter 13, 234-53
315Bibliography: The Published Work of Professor Anthony Dicks
Winter 2020
[E] BOOK REVIEWS
(1966) ‘Book Review’ 15 (April) International and Comparative Law
Quarterly 615-16: review of Dan Fenno Henderson (1965) Conciliation
and Japanese Law: Tokugawa and Modern Seattle: University of
Washington Press.
(1969) ‘Book Review’ 32(3) Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African
Studies 642-43: review of Derk Bodde and Clarence Morris (1967) Law
in Imperial China, Exemplified by 190 Ch’ing Dynasty Cases (translated
from the Hsing-an hui-lan) with Historical, Social, and Juridical
Commentaries Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
(1970) ‘Book Review’ 28(2) (November) Cambridge Law Journal 339-40:
review of Derk Bodde and Clarence Morris (1967) Law in Imperial China,
Exemplified by 190 Ch’ing Dynasty Cases (translated from the Hsing-an
hui-lan) with Historical, Social, and Juridical Commentaries Cambridge
MA: Harvard University Press.
(1971) ‘Book Review’ 20(2) (April) International and Comparative Law
Quarterly 390-91: review of Shao-Chuan Leng (1967) Justice in
Communist China: A Survey of the Judicial System of the Chinese
People’s Republic Dobbs Ferry, New York: Oceana Publications.
(1972) ‘Book Review’ 49 (January) China Quarterly 160-62: review of
Jerome Alan Cohen (ed) (1970) Contemporary Chinese Law: Research
Problems and Perspectives Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
(1973) ‘Book Review’ 55 (September) China Quarterly 572-75: review of
M J Meijer (1972) Marriage Law and Policy in the Chinese People’s
Republic Hong Kong and London: Hong Kong University Press and
Oxford University Press.
(1974) ‘Book Review’ 37(1) (February) Bulletin of the School of Oriental and
African Studies 265-66: review of M B Hooker (1972) Adat laws in
Modern Malaya: Land Tenure, Traditional Government and Religion
Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.
(1974) ‘Book Review’ 60 (December) China Quarterly 795-99: review of
Jerome Alan Cohen (ed) (1972) China’s Practice of International Law:
Some Case Studies Cambridge MA and London: Harvard University
Press.
(1974) ‘Book Review’ 60 (December) China Quarterly 795-99: review of
James Chieh Hsiung (1972) Law and Policy in China’s Foreign
Relations: A Study of Attitudes and Practice New York and London:
Columbia University Press.
(1974) ‘Book Review’ 60 (December) China Quarterly 795-99: review of
Shao-Chuan Leng and Hungdah Chiu (eds) (1972) Law in Chinese
Foreign Policy: Communist China and Selected Problems of International
Law Dobbs Ferry NY: Oceana Publications. 
316 Amicus Curiae
Series 2, Vol 1, No 2
(1975) ‘Book Review’ 61 (March) China Quarterly 168-69: review of William
W Whitson (ed) (1974) Doing Business with China: American Trade
Opportunities in the 1970s New York: Praeger. 
(1993) ‘Book Review’ 56(1) (February) Bulletin of the School of Oriental and
African Studies 180-81: review of Ming K Chan and David J Clark (eds)
(1991) The Hong Kong Basic Law: Blueprint for ‘Stability and Prosperity’
under Chinese Sovereignty Armonk NY and London: ME Sharpe.
(1995) ‘Book Review’ 58(2) (June) Bulletin of the School of Oriental and
African Studies 415: review of Thomas B Stephens (1992) Order and
Discipline in China: the Shanghai Mixed Court 1911–27 Seattle and
London: University of Washington Press.
(2014) ‘Book Review’ 54 Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society Hong Kong
Branch 231–34; review of Patrick H Hase (2013) Custom, Land and
Livelihood in Rural South China: The Traditional Land Law of Hong
Kong’s New Territories, 1750-1950 Hong Kong: Hong Kong University
Press.
[F] NEWS ARTICLES
‘Protecting the Individual’ South China Morning Post 25 April 1986.
‘Civil Law in China is Still a Sensitive Issue’ South China Morning Post 
16 May 1986.
‘Economic Law and the State-run Society’ South China Morning Post 
23 May 1986.
[G] UNPUBLISHED MANUSCRIPTS
Dicks, A R (1973) ‘Recent Developments in the Contract for Carriage of
Goods with Special Reference to the Domestic Shipping Industry’ Paper
Contributed to Conference on Civil Law and Administration in the
Chinese Economy, School of Law, University of California, Berkeley, 
27-29 August 1973, 9-14.
Palmer, Michael, A R Dicks and Y Chen (1992) Modern Chinese Law
Materials: Legislation and Related Materials vols 1-9 London: SOAS Law
Department.
Dicks, Anthony (1992) ‘Negotiable and Analogous Instruments and Other
Documents Embodying Payment Obligations’ Part XIV/Appendix to
David M Edwards CMG, JP (Chair) Report of the Working Party on Legal
and Procedural Arrangements between Hong Kong and China in Civil
and Commercial Matters, Hong Kong, 13 October 1992


English

The Published Work of Professor Anthony Dicks

Editor's introduction

Harave, Narayana

Download a copy of full issue PDF

Editors, The

Volume 66 
THE 
JOURNAL OF THE 
FRIENDS HISTORICAL 
SOCIETY 
2015 
Communications should be addressed to the Editor of the Journal 
Gil Skidmore, 46 Princes Drive, Skipton, BD23 1HL 
email: gilskidmore@waitrose.com 
Reviews Editor: Chris Skidmore, 46 Princes Drive, Skipton, BD23 1HL. 
email: chrisskidmore@waitrose.com. 
EDITORIAL 
Howard Gregg has been editor of this journal for the volumes 
covering the years 1997 to 2014, a period in real terms of nearly 
twenty years. During that time he has maintained a high 
standard of content and has undertaken his task with diligence 
and rigour. I would like to thank him for all that he has done and 
hope that I can continue his work in my own way. 
Although this volume has been delayed I hope to produce 
another before the end of 2017 and that by the end of 2018 we 
will be back on track. 
Betty Hagglund's Presidential Address gives a vivid picture 
of the treatment of 'enemy aliens' during World War I, of the 
setting up of detention centres such as Knockaloe on the Isle of 
Man and of how Quakers got involved in relief work with those 
detained and their families. 
Peter Smith looks at three pamphlets by the Peningtons, 
father and son, and examines their involvement in the English 
Civil War, mainly before Isaac junior became a Quaker. 
Oliver Pickering uses minutes and a hitherto unpublished 
document to give us a detailed account of the building of Settle 
meeting house, a useful addition both to local and to building 
history. 
Judith Roads takes a different view of two doctrinal dispute 
tracts from the 1670s, analysing the language used in them. 
The Reviews Editor, Chris Skidmore, has again brought 
together an interesting range of book reviews. 
2 
I am very happy to consider articles for future volumes of 
the Journal. If you have something already written, a talk you 
have given or perhaps a work in progress please do not hesitate 
to contact me. Also if you would like to suggest people working 
in any area of Quaker history who might like to write for the 
Journal please feel free to do so. 
Gil Skidmore, editor 


Editorial

Pickering, Oliver

The Buildings of Settle Meeting House in 1678

Beattie, Sean

35 
NO 'FRIENDS' OF HOME RULE? 
From their first arrival in Ireland in 1654 as a group of 
radical Christians, the Quakers have played a prominent role in 
Irish society. By the time of the Great Famine, they numbered 
approximately 3000 and were concentrated mostly in the south 
and east of the country. They came to national attention in 1846 
in the midst of the Great Famine. In response to appeals for help, 
they held a meeting in Eustace St., Dublin on 13 November and 
set up the Central Relief Committee to coordinate famine relief.1 
Following a fund-raising campaign, food, clothing and money 
were sent from America. Boilers were shipped from Liverpool in 
1847 to ports in the west of Ireland, thus ensuring that the most 
distressed areas received the benefits of relief schemes. To assist 
with short-term measures, the Quakers set up soup kitchens 
which later formed a model for government relief programmes. 
The Quaker famine pots scattered across the countryside have 
survived as lasting icons of a remarkable period in Quaker 
philanthropic activity. Long-term assistance was provided 
through loans, the distribution of seed and emigration schemes. 
The Society of Friends succeeded in charting a distinctive role 
for themselves while at the same time standing apart from the 
political and religious controversies of the period. 
Following the Famine, individual Quakers continued to 
maintain a keen interest in social issues. Among them was the 
English Quaker, James Hack Tuke, who had a close association 
with the country for almost fifty years. Raised in a wealthy family 
noted for its philanthropy in Yorkshire, he moved to Hitchen in 
Hertfordshire, where he became a partner of the old established 
firm of Sharples and Company. In the winter of 1846 to 1847, 
he left the luxury of his stately home in Bancroft to accompany 
William Forster as they monitored conditions during the Great 
Famine in Connaught. Forster's aim was to assess conditions 
in Ireland in respect of food supplies, wages and employment.2 
Tuke returned to Ireland in the autumn of 1847, recording his 
impressions of poverty, seeking remedies, raising awareness 
through correspondence in the press and a series of pamphlets.3 
Both Tuke and Forster helped to inform public opinion in Britain 
that absentee landlords alone were not to blame for the levels of 
36 NO ; FRIENDS' OF HOME RULE? 
deprivation and that there were more complex factors involved. 
In 1880, Tuke highlighted some of the problems in Irish Distress 
and Its Remedies: A Visit to Donegal and Connaught in the Spring of 
1880.4 His letters to The Times raised public awareness in Britain 
which resulted in important relief measures being approved by 
Westminster. Because of his extensive knowledge of Ireland and 
his political impartiality, Tuke was consulted by Arthur Balfour 
when the latter as Chief Secretary established the Congested 
Districts Board in 1891, particularly in relation to the designation 
of disadvantaged areas and the promotion of long-term relief 
measures. The Board played a major role in the regeneration of 
the west in relation to agriculture, fishing, cottage industries, 
textiles and land ownership. Tuke was an active member of the 
original Board. 
As a religious institution, the Quakers won widespread 
recognition for their charitable work in Ireland as they were 
perceived as an independent and neutral voice with no political 
allegiance. Throughout the world, they became known for their 
fairness and toleration of others' religious beliefs, a factor which 
was instrumental in their rapid expansion throughout the British 
Isles and America. Bearing witness to peace and in opposition to 
military action, their advocacy and testimony, which eschewed 
the great political controversies of the period, earned them 
international respect. Although they had representation at 
Westminster, it was Quaker policy to avoid involvement in the 
political controversies of the day. 
The Act of Union of 1800 was intended to improve relations 
between England and Ireland in constitutional, political and 
economic affairs, but did not succeed in winning the support 
of Irish nationalists. Towards the end of the nineteenth century, 
Home Rule emerged as a major political issue and this presented 
a challenge for Quakers. In 1886, William Gladstone, Prime 
Minister, introduced his first Home Rule Bill in Parliament but 
it was defeated and Gladstone's administration collapsed. The 
Quaker MP, John Bright, was among those who voted against 
the Bill. Traditionally, Quakers had supported Gladstone's 
Liberals but the Home Rule controversy adversely influenced 
the relationship between the Liberals and the Society of Friends. 
In Ireland, Quakers strenuously opposed the Bill. In 1893, 
Gladstone returned to office and a second Home Rule Bill was 
NO I FRIENDS' OF HOME RULE? 37 
introduced. On the second occasion, the Bill passed the House 
of Commons but was thrown out by the House of Lords. The 
fact that the measure won the approval of the Commons was a 
cause of alarm among Quakers, particularly among the business 
community and it was at this juncture that a number of Irish 
Quakers proposed to make their concerns known publicly. In 
March 1893, Irish Quakers decided to organise a conference of 
Quakers in England to discuss the Government of Ireland Bill 
before parliament which, in the opinion of Quakers, if passed 
into law 'would be extremely injurious to the moral and material 
prosperity of this country'.5 In effect, Irish Quakers were looking 
to their English co-religionists to support their opposition to 
Home Rule. As a result of this policy, Quakers in Ireland were 
aligning themselves with the Protestant Unionist tradition and 
becoming ensnared in what the Irish historian F.5.L. Lyons has 
described as a 'conflict of cultures' .6 
The Quaker conference took place at the Cannon St. Hotel, 
London on 21 April 1893 under the chairmanship of James 
Hack Tuke with Thomas Hodgkin as Secretary. In an address 
distributed to fellow Quakers in Ireland, Tuke outlined his 
reasons for his objections. He deplored the possible damage to the 
constitutional bonds between the two countries and expressed 
concern about the impact on trade and commerce, despite 
the fact that Irish MPs would continue to sit in Westminster. 
Such issues were routinely raised in parliament but he added 
that the Bill would 'promote interference by clerical and party 
domination' of Irish affairs to the detriment of a minority. The 
address was signed by 1376 of the 1690 adult members of the 
Society of Friends resident in Ireland? Reminding the audience 
that he counted many Roman Catholic clergymen among his 
acquaintances, he believed that there was no interference with 
religious liberty in Ireland 'other than that exercised by the 
Roman Catholic Hierarchy'. The Conference was attended by 
some of the leading Quakers in Ireland. 
Jonathan Pim of Dublin recalled Quaker objections to the first 
Home Rule Bill of 1886. The Pims had played an outstanding 
role in the early development of railways in Ireland. J. Theodore 
Richardson of Lisburn expressed fears that Home Rule would 
undermine the prosperity they enjoyed under the Union. Coming 
from a prominent industrial family engaged in the manufacture 
38 NO I FRIENDS' OF HOME RULE? 
of linen, he rejected the argument put forward by Home Rule 
supporters that Irish industry and agriculture would benefit by 
the introduction of a system of protection. In his opinion, the 
Home Rule movement had grown out of agrarian discontent 
with the support of the Catholic hierarchy. He criticised English 
liberals who argued that Catholics did not get' fair play', adding 
that all positions were open to them with the exception of the 
Lord Lieutenancy. With reference to Belfast, he noted the growth 
of shipbuilding, rope works and tobacco manufacture. He said 
that in 1850 there were fifty-eight power looms but by 1893, 
their number had grown to 28,233, adding that prosperity was 
enjoyed by members of all religions. His greatest concern was 
that a parliament in Dublin would be controlled by members 
of the Land League and ' dominated by members of the Roman 
Catholic Hierarchy'. Both Pim and Richardson were prominent 
in the Irish Quaker Unionist community. 
The strongest denunciation of Home Rule came from John Pim 
of Belfast, adding that what he dreaded most was 'the invisible 
and visible tyranny of the Romanish clergy'. He went so far as 
to accuse the clergy of keeping the people poor because of the 
expenditure of £300,000 per year on the construction of churches. 
His comments were supported by George Grubb of Cork who 
criticised the role of priests in the election of Nationalists to 
parliament. Priests were influential in the selection of candidates 
at party conventions for the Irish Parliamentary Party at 
Westminster. Bishop O'Donnell of Raphoe acted as treasurer of 
the party and was a supporter of John Redmond. On the same 
theme, Joseph T. Pim of Dublin believed that Home Rule would 
bring Ireland under the control of what he called 'a political 
Pope'. 
A small handful of Quakers stood apart from the controversy 
and supported the Home Rule movement. They included 
prominent figures such as Alfred Webb, T.H. Webb and Henry 
Wigham, who were members of the original Irish Protestant 
Home Rule Association in 1886 and had supported Isaac Butt in 
his Home Rule campaign.s 
Among Unionist opponents of Home Rule, the rallying cry 
was that 'Home Rule meant Rome Rule' and this was a recurring 
theme in the speeches at the London conference.9 On one hand, 
this viewpoint was unexpected as cordial relationships existed 
NO 'FRIENDS' OF HOME RULE? 39 
between the Society of Friends and clerical leaders of the majority 
religion throughout the nineteenth century. The engagement 
of the Society of Friends with the anti-Home Rule campaign 
also stood at odds with the traditional Quaker policy of non-
involvement in party political feuding. On the other hand, as a 
minority, the Society of Friends had experienced discrimination 
at many levels and consequently felt particularly vulnerable. 
During the Land War in Donegal, Tuke had taken a firm 
stand on behalf of evicted tenants and pleaded with the Chief 
Secretary, Arthur Balfour, to curb the power of the landlords and 
the police. He had lengthy meetings with Fr McFadden, parish 
priest of Gweedore in west Donegal and they appeared to have a 
sound working friendship. Privately, Tuke had reservations and 
he referred to him in correspondence with Arthur Balfour as a 
, supreme dicta tor' .10 
As a member of the Congested Districts Board, Tuke worked 
harmoniously and tirelessly with Catholic clergy on the BoardY 
His objections to Home Rule were founded on the belief that 
constitutional reform would bring no improvement in the lives 
of the people to whom he had dedicated his life's work. He 
believed the first Home Rule Bill offered nothing to destitute 
peasants and consequently in 1893, he decided to take an active 
stand in opposing Home RuleP Tuke's opposition had only 
one outcome: the Home Rule controversy was responsible for 
creating a serious division among the Society of Friends, with 
a majority of Irish Quakers opposing it and a British majority 
supporting it. 
Tuke died in 1896 and the Home Rule controversy lay 
dormant for almost a decade and a half. By the time the Home 
Rule Act was passed by parliament in 1914, Europe was at 
war and the Society of Friends had harnessed their resources 
in a different direction. Following the Easter Rising of 1916, 
Quakers in Ireland found themselves on opposing sides. With 
the formation of the Irish Volunteers in 1913, the Co. Down-
born Quaker, Bulmer Hobson, played a prominent role. It is 
believed that it was Hobson who suggested to Eoin MacNeill at 
a meeting in Wynn's Hotel in Dublin that he should establish 
the Irish Volunteers and lead the movement.13 Silently bowing to 
the inevitable, other Quakers held positions in the newly-formed 
Irish Free State. One of the best -known was James G. Douglas 
40 NO I FRIENDS' OF HOME RULE? 
whom Michael Collins invited to assist in the drafting of the 
first Constitution. He held the position of Vice-Chairman of the 
Senate and served over three terms as Senator between 1922 and 
1954. 
Irish Quakers emerged in glory because of their philanthropic 
activity during the Great Famine of the 1840s but their opposition 
to Home Rule in the 1890s resulted in their role being re-defined 
as the majority aligned themselves with the Protestant Unionist 
tradition. In the J conflict of cultures', they drew closer to the 
Anglo-Irish and Protestant Unionist establishment. With the 
formation of the Irish Free State in 1921, Irish Quakers were once 
again forced to come to terms with a further re-assessment of 
their role in an Ireland partitioned into two different jurisdictions. 
Sean Beattie 
NO 'FRIENDS' OF HOME RULE? 41 
ENDNoTES 
1. Transactions of the Central Relief Committee, 1846-7 (Dublin: 
Edmund Burke, 1996), p. V111. 
2. Helen E. Hatton, TIle Largest Amount of Good: Quaker Reliefin 
Ireland 1654-1921 (Kingston and Montreal: McGill- Queen's 
University Press, 1993), p. 94 
3. James Hack Tuke, A Visit to Connaught in the Autumn of1847, 
(London: C. Gilpin, 1848). 
4. James Hack Tuke, Irish Distress and its Remedies: A Visit 
to Donegal and Connaught in the Spring of 1880, (London: 
W.Ridgway, 1880). 
5. An Appeal to the Religious Society of Friends in Great Britain, 
Third Month, 1893, Library of the Society of Friends, 
London (LSF) 
6. F.5.L.Lyons, Culture and Anarchy in Ireland 1800-70 
(Oxford, 1979) quoted in Howard F. Gregg, 'English and 
Irish Quakers and Irish Home Rule 1886-93', in A Quaker 
Miscellany for Edward H. Milligan ed. By David Blamires, 
Jeremy Greenwood and Alex Kerr (Manchester: David 
Blamires, 1985), p. 88. 
7. To Our Fellow Members of the Religious Society of Friends in 
Ireland, Fourth Month, 1893 (LSF) 
8. Maurice T. Wigham, A Short History of the Religious Society of 
Friends in Ireland (Dublin: Society of Friends, Ireland Yearly 
Meeting, Historical Committee, 1992), p. 102 
9. Conference of Friends upon the Home Rule Question, 21 April 
1883 (London: Simpson, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent and Co., 
1883), p.49 (LSF) 
10. Tuke to Balfour, 4 May 1889, Add MSS 49817, ff. 169-255, 
Arthur Balfour Papers, British Library, London. 
11. W. L. Micks, An Account of the Constitution, Administration 
and Dissolution of the Congested Districts Board for Ireland from 
1891 to 1923 (Dublin: Eason & Son, 1925), p. 174 
12. Temporary Mss. 369/4/8, J.H. Tuke, Anti-Home Rule, (LSF). 
13. Easter Rising 1916, ed. By Leanne Blaney (Cootehall: Willow 
Design & Publishing, 2016), p. 24 


No 'Friends' Of Home Rule?

Doeh, Doran

Awards of Costs in International Commercial Arbitration: A Simple Guide to the Principles

Kellam, Amy

This Note considers the implementation of Personal IndependencePayment (PIP) in England and Wales, a benefit introduced in 2013 for
working-age claimants who suffer significant ill-health or disability. PIP
is frequently discussed in the context of disability and welfare rights. It
has also, however, had a notable impact upon Her Majesty’s Courts and
Tribunals Service (HMCTS). This Note is part of an ongoing research
project on legal development and good governance. It presents a brief
summary of PIP and places it in the context of broader strategies to
simplify the delivery of public services. It raises the prospect that such
strategies produce negative socio-legal outcomes, such as reduced access
to justice and a consequent increase in pressures on other public services,
including the HMCTS and the NHS.
Following the Welfare Reform Act 2012, significant and sweeping
changes have been made, and are still in the process of being made, to
the UK state welfare system. Arguments for reform centred around three
main points: first, a need to simplify what was a complex and disjointed
system of different individual benefits; second, a need to cut costs; and,
third, a need to develop a social security system more in keeping with a
modern, digitized world. Set in an era of economic austerity, these
arguments carried force. 
PIP was introduced in 2013, to replace Disability Living Allowance
(DLA), which was issued to approximately 3 million UK citizens. PIP was
a decisive move towards a more simplified assessment based upon 14
‘point-scoring’ questions. Twelve of these questions evaluate a claimant’s
eligibility to the daily living component of PIP, whilst a further two
questions assess eligibility for a mobility component. Answering these
questions is primarily a box-ticking exercise. Applicants are required to
select multiple-choice answers to each of these 14 questions. Decision-
Amicus Curiae, Series 2, Vol 1, No 2, 287-94
PERSONAL INDEPENDENCE PAYMENTS
AMY KELLAM
Institute of Advanced Legal Studies
287
Winter 2020
288 Amicus Curiae
Series 2, Vol 1, No 2
makers evaluate whether an applicant’s answers meet certain ‘descriptors’
and calculate points accordingly. The statutory minimum for a successful
claim for either of these components is 8 points (Social Security (Personal
Independence Payment) Regulations 2013: parts 5.6 and 5.7). 
The decision-making process is outsourced by the Department of Work
and Pensions (DWP) to three contracted, for-profit assessment providers.
Most claimants are invited to a face-to-face assessment with their regional
provider. Again, this is largely a box-ticking exercise, which utilizes
proprietary DWP software to guide the assessor’s decision-making
pathway. Assessors are medical professionals drawn from a variety of
different fields including doctors, nurses, paramedics, occupational
therapists and physiotherapists. There is no requirement for assessors to
have specialized knowledge of a claimant’s condition. Thus, depending
upon regional providers, a claimant suffering from a psychiatric illness
could well find themselves assessed by a physiotherapist. The DWP’s
digital assessment portal and internal guidelines are intended to provide
sufficient data for contracted decision-makers to carry out assessments
regardless of their specialism. 
It should be noted that the application process does not automatically
engage with a claimant’s own doctors or consultants. Under Question
1, applicants provide the details of their healthcare providers. However,
whilst decision-makers may request evidence directly from GPs, the
onus is upon the claimant to provide supporting documentation at the
time of application. As the DWP (2018: 2) guidelines for health
professionals state:
Claimants are only required to send in evidence they already hold,
such as copies of clinic letters—they are not told to contact their GP
or health professional to obtain further evidence. 
There is no requirement for a statement from a GP or other health
professional on the PIP claim form.
It may be necessary to provide factual information, but it will be the
assessment providers who will contact you rather than your patient
or DWP. (emphasis in original)
When introducing PIP the government intended that the reform would
save money and reduce DWP caseloads. In addition, four specific claims
relating to good governance were made:
1 It would target support more closely on those most in need of support.
2 It would be more responsive as claimants’ circumstances change. 
289Note—Personal Independence Payments
Winter 2020
3 It would be based on a fairer, more transparent and consistent
assessment of need.
4 It would be easier for claimants, DWP staff and disability organizations
to understand (Mackley & Ors 2019).
Instead, the simplified assessment procedure has arguably failed to
achieve these key aims. Claim rejection rate is high; 47% of DLA claimants
who registered a claim for PIP received a lower level of award or no award.
However, for claimants who proceed to appeal before a tribunal, the
success rate is 73% with an average case clearance time of 31 weeks
(Mackley & Ors 2019). Due to over-simplification of the initial assessment
procedure, appeal at tribunal may be the first time complex cases are able
to receive full and fair judgment. Such a system can have devastating
consequences for claimants, as months may pass before critical financial
welfare is obtained. Indeed, the DWP has admitted that between 2013,
when PIP was introduced, and 2018 some 17,000 claimants died waiting
for disability benefit decisions (Pring 2019). On the other hand, despite
government estimates that a pared-down PIP process would cost 20% less
than DLA, the Office for Budget Responsibility (2019: 120) revealed that
by 2017-2018 it was costing around 15-20% more.
The introduction of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 coincided with
significant changes to the provision of legal aid under the Legal Aid,
Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO). LASPO
removed legal aid eligibility for welfare benefit cases. Whilst the Ministry
of Justice (MoJ) recognized that this would have a disproportionate impact
upon the ill and disabled, it concluded that ‘legal aid is not justified in
these cases because the issues are not generally of sufficiently high
importance to warrant funding, and the user-accessible nature of the
tribunal will mean that appellants are able to represent themselves’
(Ministry of Justice 2010: 4.219). However, MoJ statistics revealed that
only around 28% of unrepresented benefit claimants are successful on
appeal, jumping to 90% for those who go with the support of a legal
representative (HC Deb 23 April 2019, vol 658, col 22).
There was an expectation that the not-for-profit sector would fill the
gap left by cuts to legal aid for welfare benefit cases (Ministry of Justice
2010: 4.218). This has failed to manifest. Services such as Law Centres
have struggled under the burden of both legal aid and local authority
funding cuts, whilst the Citizens Advice service (Citizens Advice 2014: 2)
withdrew provision of specialist legal advice across the majority of its
centres. In addition, there has been a shortage of new legal practitioners
specializing in social welfare law. Modules on legal aid have been removed
290 Amicus Curiae
from law school curriculums and the Solicitors Regulation Authority has
included no mandatory social welfare law modules in its plan for the new
solicitors qualifying examination (Law Centres Network 2019: 19; Rose
2019). Thus, an existing lack of access to advice may become entrenched.
A consequence of lack of access to advice is that opportunities for early
intervention have been limited, increasing the likelihood that individuals
do not, or cannot, seek help until they are at crisis point (Low Commission
2014: 16). Individuals eligible for PIP are by nature a particularly
vulnerable group, suffering from physical and/or mental illness and
disability, including terminal conditions. It has been well documented that
in family law LASPO precipitated a fall in mediation and a sharp increase
in litigants in person, placing considerable strain on the courts
(Richardson 2018). Similarly, the implementation of PIP, combined with
the changes set in motion by LASPO, has created a perfect storm for a
dramatic increase in caseloads at tribunals.
PIP appeals at the First-tier Tribunal level are heard in the Social
Entitlement Chamber, which deals with cases from three jurisdictions
Asylum Support, Criminal Injuries Compensation and Social Security and
Child Support (SSCS), the latter being the largest of the First-tier
Tribunals. In the last quarter, the SSCS received 38% of receipts to all
First-tier Tribunals, of which 60% were PIP appeals (Ministry of Justice
2019: 2-3). The Senior President of Tribunals’ Annual Report 2019 notes
that the rapid rise in appeals before the SSCS since 2012 ‘has outstripped
our ability to recruit and train sufficient numbers of panel members to
keep pace with increased receipts’ (Aitken 2019: 25).
Judge Aitken (2019: 27), the president of the Social Entitlement
Chamber, has noted that one reason PIP appeals have come to represent
the bulk of cases before the SSCS is that: ‘The regulations relevant to a
claim to PIP were drafted in such a way that considerable interpretation
was always going to be a significant requirement.’ This raises important
questions about the legislation-drafting process in relation to the then
presiding government’s claims that disability benefit reform would
embody, and advance, fundamental principles of good governance. What
was outwardly a simplified assessment process, purportedly designed to
increase accessibility, instead gave rise to complex issues of interpretation
that are only slowly coming into focus through case law. Meanwhile,
vulnerable claimants have been left with a shrinking resource pool of
advice and representation, with considerable uncertainty about the
criteria for eligibility.
Series 2, Vol 1, No 2
291Note—Personal Independence Payments
Winter 2020
PIP is just one of several welfare benefits administered by the DWP, and
along with DLA—which PIP is in the process of replacing—constitutes
approximately 8% of overall welfare spending (Office for Budget
Responsibility 2018: 23). However, PIP has the unique status of producing
the largest workload in the Social Entitlement Chamber. It therefore
warrants particular scrutiny, especially in light of the ambitious project
of reform currently being implemented across HMCTS. As part of this
project, introduced in 2016 (Ministry of Justice & Her Majesty’s Court and
Tribunal Service 2016), the SSCS is intended to lead the way in the shift
to Online Dispute Resolution (ODR).
Across the welfare system as a whole, it is expected that over 80% of
UK claimants will eventually manage their benefit claims online (Finn
2018). Whilst human decision-makers will still play a role, person-to-
person contact will decrease and automated decision-making will
increase. PIP is not marked out as an e-delivery benefit, but the move
away from face-to-face tribunal appeals for PIP to digital appeals has
already begun (Aitken 2019: 26). There remains considerable uncertainty
about if and how ODR will meet the needs of PIP claimants. Social welfare
law is a markedly complex area of law, and there are concerns that the
digitization of the appeal process will result in a simplification that will
have detrimental consequences for claimants. It has been noted that ‘the
ability of tribunal members to see the appellant in the flesh and to make
their own assessment of the medical issues and the degree of
functionality’ is critical to the appeal process (House of Commons Justice
Committee 2019: 15). In addition, concerns have been raised about the
capacity of disadvantaged and vulnerable groups to utilize digital systems
(House of Commons Justice Committee 2019: 12-13).
Both welfare and legal aid reform were ushered in as part of wider
austerity measures following the 2008 financial crisis. The brief overview
of PIP given in this Note suggests that efforts to simplify and reduce public
expenditure can carry hidden costs. DLA was a relatively minor and stable
component of welfare spending, but its transition to PIP set in motion a
trajectory of changes which ultimately increased DWP expenditure. PIP
has also had a significant impact upon HMCTS. In order to meet
demands, over the past year the Social Entitlement Chamber has trained
350 medically and disability qualified personnel who had no prior legal
or judicial experience (Aitken 2019: 26). It is evident that cost-cutting in
one department can lead to increased costs in other areas.
It remains to be seen whether the transition to ODR in the tribunal
system will be successful in reducing pressures in the Social Entitlement
292 Amicus Curiae
Chamber. More research is needed to fully assess the impact such reform
will have, particularly upon disadvantaged and vulnerable groups. In
addition, it is unclear how reforms in the SSCS will impact upon the NHS.
An inability to access welfare can lead to a downward spiral of
indebtedness, relationship, housing and health issues. As noted above,
withdrawal of public funding reduced the capacity for early intervention
in social issues. It is thus not surprising that there has been an increase
in individuals turning to their GPs for support. A survey carried out by
the Citizens Advice (2015: 1) ‘indicated that GPs spend an average of 19
per cent of their time dealing with social issues that are not principally
about health, costing the NHS an estimated £400m per year’. In addition,
there is a growing body of research pointing to a bidirectional link between
law and health, revealing that ‘social and economic problems with a legal
dimension can exacerbate or create ill health and, conversely that ill-
health can create legal problems’ (Genn 2019: 159).
The impact upon the NHS is demonstratable, albeit hard to quantify.
More insidious and incalculable are the broader implications of a deficit
in social justice. A parliamentary Select Committee that investigated PIP
heard evidence that the ‘ramifications of incorrect decisions … go far
beyond those claimants directly affected’. The final report highlighted that
‘Trust is fundamental to the overall running of a successful society’ and
emphasized the necessity of procedural fairness and transparency (Work
and Pensions Committee 2018: paras 8-9). Following the reforms, legal
aid frontline agencies have reported a growing sense of anger as
individuals face seemingly intractable barriers to justice. As Lord
Neuberger has said, such circumstances can place the rule of law itself
under threat: 
My worry is the removal of legal aid for people to get advice about law
and get representation in court will start to undermine the rule of law
because people will feel like the government isn’t giving them access
to justice in all sorts of cases. And that will either lead to frustration
and lack of confidence in the system, or it will lead to people taking
the law into their own hands. (Neuberger 2013)
As a preliminary conclusion to further research, this Note observes
that, whilst the adoption of the digital delivery of public services, including
ODR, has the potential to increase access to justice, processes to simplify
administrative procedures need to be undertaken with caution. The
potential for negative socio-legal consequences should not be
underestimated. This is especially so given that such consequences may
manifest in areas different from those where initial reform was initiated
and, by hiding in the shadows of wider social issues, make good
Series 2, Vol 1, No 2
293Note—Personal Independence Payments
Winter 2020
governance harder to evaluate and failures of governance harder to bring
to account.
References
Aitken, John (2019) ‘Annex B: First-tier Tribunal—The Social Entitlement
Chamber’ in E Ryder, The Senior President of Tribunals’ Annual Report
2019. 
Citizens Advice (2014) ‘Nowhere to Turn—Citizens Advice Speaks out on
Impact of Legal Aid Cuts’ Press Release 8 July 2014 London: Citizens
Advice.
Citizens Advice (2015) ‘A Very General Practice: How Much Time Do GPs
Spend on Issues Other than Health?’ Policy Briefing London: Citizens
Advice.
Department for Work & Pensions (2018) ‘PIP: A Quick Guide for Health
Professionals’ December 2018.
Finn, John (2018) ‘The British Government is Closing Dozens of Job
Centres. The Decision will Come Back to Haunt It’ CityMetric 11 July
2018.
Genn, Hazel (2019) ‘When Law is Good for your Health: Mitigating the
Social Determinants of Health through Access to Justice’ 72(1) Current
Legal Problems 159-202.
House of Commons Justice Committee (2019) ‘Court and Tribunal
Reforms: Second Report of Session 2019’ 31 October 2019.
Law Centres Network (2019) ‘Doing Justice in Dark Times: LCN Annual
Review 2018/2019’. 
Low Commission (2014) ‘Tackling the Advice Deficit—A Strategy for Access
to Advice and Legal Support on Social Welfare Law in England and
Wales: Report of the Low Commission on the Future of Advice and Legal
Support’ January 2014 Legal Action Group. 
Mackley, Andrew, Roderick McInnes, Steven Kennedy & Alexander Bellis
(2019) ‘Administration of Personal Independence Payments on
Merseyside’ House of Commons Library, 25 March 2019.
Ministry of Justice (2010) ‘Proposals for the Reform of Legal Aid in
England and Wales’ Consultation Paper November 2010.
Ministry of Justice (2019) ‘Tribunal Statistics Quarterly, July to
September 2019 (Provisional)’. 
Ministry of Justice and Her Majesty’s Court and Tribunal Service (2016)
‘Transforming our Justice System—A Joint Statement’ September
2016.
294 Amicus Curiae
Neuberger, Lord (2013) Today Programme, BBC Radio 4, 5 March 2013.
Office for Budget Responsibility (2018) ‘An OBR Guide to Welfare
Spending’.
Office for Budget Responsibility (2019) ‘Welfare Trends Report—January
2019’.
Pring, John (2019) ‘“Shocking” PIP Death Figures Show Assessment
Process is Unfit for Purpose’ Disability News Service 7 February 2019. 
Richardson, M (2018) ‘Litigants in Person—An Inherent Problem with the
Justice System’ Family Law Week 16 November 2018.
Rose, Neil (2019) ‘Regulators “Need to Sustain” Social Welfare Law
Training’ 15 February 2019.
Work and Pensions Committee (2018) ‘PIP and ESA Assessments’
12 February 2018.
Legislation Cited
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012
Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013
Welfare Reform Act 2012
Series 2, Vol 1, No 2


Personal Independence Payments

This article considers emerging data on the escalation of domestic abuse in lockdown and, with reference to the proposed Domestic Abuse Bill 2020, explores how the depiction of, and response to, domestic abuse during lockdown sheds light on wider socio-legal issues and challenges.&nbsp

Domestic Abuse During the UK’s Covid-19 Lockdown: From Normal to New Normal and What Survivors’ Experiences Might Teach Us

Not a member yet