"Government and of the British nation is favourable to such rising. "I believe there could not possibly be a grosser error. The desire "of this country is always that the peace of foreign countries may, if "possible, be preserved; and on this occasion I am quite sure, with perhaps the exception of some small minority, the people of this country regard with very great aversion the bloodshed which has "been caused in Spain in connexion with this rising as an aggrava"tion of the political difficulties of the country. And the raising of a mere handful of money, perfectly insignificant in reference to the question, does thus become the cause of very serious mischief. I "have now, so far as we are justified, expressed our opinion upon the "subject; and with regard to the practical question, I can truly say, although we were advised that the simple act of contributing or ask"ing for subscriptions did not of itself constitute a punishable offence, "it was by no means intended to go so far as to say there were no "circumstances under which subscriptions of that kind might be "taken notice of in proceedings at law, and might form part of the "subject matter for the cognizance of a Court. As far as the views " and intentions of the Government are concerned, my hon. friend "knows very well that, independently of the offences which have "been created by a statute, there is a general principle of Common "Law in the country applicable to the duty. of a subject of this country, which requires him to respect the peace of the dominions "of a Power with which Her Majesty is at amity; and whenever in"formation is given to the Government, or obtained by the Government, from which there may appear to be any reasonable ground of expectation that an indictment for an unlawful conspiracy to aid in an invasion or in the disturbance of the peace of a foreign country "with which Her Majesty was at amity,-whether it be by the con"tribution of money for the purpose or in any other manner,-when

แ

ever there is reasonable ground to believe that such an indictment can be maintained, then would be the time when Her Majesty's "Government would think it their duty and would be perfectly prepared to vindicate the law of the country. With regard to the "alteration of the law, that is a very serious matter. An alteration "of the state of the law raises many important considerations, two of "which are these-first, we have recently been engaged in a very "solemn and deliberate proceeding with reference to the recasting of "the Foreign Enlistment Act, and my hon. friend, I am sure, will at once perceive it is not desirable that proceedings of that kind, or changes of that kind, should be made from day to day; they ought "to be founded upon very grave considerations, and upon a very clear case, with a clear computation of the consequences to which they inay lead. And moreover, there is always the risk in cases of this "kind of giving a factitious importance to things in themselves insignificant. I have gone somewhat beyond the limits of an answer "to a question, yet I am quite sensible that what I have said is a

แ

very inadequate statement upon a subject of very great impor"tance and delicacy. I assure my hon. friend proceedings of this "kind will be carefully watched by us. I hope he will not be surprised I cannot give a pledge to propose a definite alteration of the "state of the law on the subject, but certainly attach great impor"tance to the conviction which I entertain, and which we all enter"tain, that these proceedings are emphatically disapproved by the general and almost unanimous sentiments of the people of this country."-Times, April 25, 1873.

66

APPENDIX XI. PAGE 804.

Extract from Debates in both Houses on Motions for Papers relative to the Treaty of Peace with France. [Hansard's Parliamentary History (1802), vol. xxxvi. pp. 674-5.] [Speech of Dr. Lawrence.] May 12th.

"Dr. Lawrence said that nothing had passed that could induce "him to abandon the opinion he entertained, that the Treaty of "Peace lately signed was, in many respects, most fatal to the country. "Let any person consider of what importance to this country were "its possessions in the East; and let him at the same time consider "how the security and well-being of those possessions were endangered by the non-renewal of the Treaties by which they were "heretofore protected. Let it be considered what advantages were given to the enemy by this neglect, or omission, or by whatever "other name it was to be called-advantages which the enemy him"self already exaggerated."

"The Convention of 1787 granted a general exemption to all "factories, and a general jurisdiction over all persons within certain "limits. The omission of any regulation to this effect in the pre"sent Treaty, might renew the ancient jealousies."—(Ib. p. 677.)

"It might be urged, he said, in defence of the non-revival of "former Treaties, that we did not give up our rights, but were pre"pared to defend them to the utmost. But though they had not "been revived generally, it was surely worth while to revive specifically that part which protected our commerce in the East Indies." -(Ib. p. 679.)

Speech of Lord Grenville. Debate in the Lords on the Definitive Treaty of Peace. Ibid. pp. 688-9.

"It was asked what was the use of discussion now, when peace was concluded? Was it wished to overthrow the Treaty? If not, "what benefit could arise from debating upon the subject of it? He

66

"should be sorry to bring forward any motion, if he had it not in his power to meet such an argument. Whatever disadvantages might "arise to the country from this unfortunate Treaty, he would be one "of the first to say, it was concluded by the Power which had the "right, by the constitution of the country, to conclude it; and, "therefore, whatever were its terms, Parliament was bound to accede "to it. It was ratified by His Majesty, and the Great Seal of the Kingdom affixed to it; consequently it was irrevocable; and not "to carry it into effect would be to add dishonour to the loss occa"sioned by the Treaty, and to impeach the national integrity. The "first proposition he should make to the House was, to declare to "His Majesty their opinion, that the public faith was pledged to the "observance of the Peace; that it was an obligation binding upon "the country to maintain it inviolable.

66

"He had already stated to the House his objections to the preliminary Treaty if the definitive Treaty had been conformable to "the preliminary articles, and the relative situation of France and Spain had not altered by intervening circumstances, however he might have been disposed to have protested against the definitive "Treaty, he should not have thought it necessary to have proposed "to the House the adoption of any new measure; but he found that "all the grounds of the pretensions on the part of France, as con"tained in the preliminary Treaty, had not only been confirmed by "the definitive Treaty, but exceeded. The terms of the latter were "therefore infinitely more prejudicial than the former. He could "not avoid calling the attention of the House to what had been the arguments used against the preliminary articles. It had been "stated that in all negotiations for peace there were two grounds or "bases necessary to be adhered to; when after a long contest between "two nations, the respective Governments were considering how "they might restore the blessings of peace and tranquillity, the basis on which the negotiation proceeded was, either the status ante bellum, the actual situation in which the parties stood before the war, or the situation in which they stood at the time of the nego"tiation which was called the uti possidetis. Instead of the negotia"tors of the definititve Treaty proceeding distinctly upon one of these grounds, they had applied both in the most prejudicial manner possible to this country. They had referred to the status ante bellum "with regard to England, by giving up all she had taken during the "war to France; and they had adopted the uti possidetis as to France, by leaving her in possession of all that she had acquired. It was "obvious that at the commencement of the negotiation each country "was in possession of some advantage which operated to the disadvantage of the other. It was to our disadvantage that France "possessed so much power on the Continent; and it was to the disadvantage of France that we, by the superior skill and valour of our navy, were possessed of the colonies of France and Spain.

66

แ

66

"The arrangement to have been desired was, that we should have "diminished the power of France upon the Continent in proportion "to our sacrifices with respect to the colonies that we had taken. If "France could not have been persuaded to that, then it was our duty "to have extended our maritime power for the purposes of compel"ling her. As far as appeared by the Treaty, ministers had made no attempt whatever to reduce the power of France on the Continent, "but had, by concessions abroad, given her the means of weakening "our colonial strength. This was not acting upon the principle adopted "by Lord Chatham at the Peace of 1763. That enlightened states- · man had always considered that every preliminary Treaty should be as definitive as possible. If the preliminary articles of 1763 were compared with the definitive, it would appear that there was scarcely any difference between them; while the direct contrary was "the case with regard to the present Treaty."-(Ibid. pp. 689–691.) "That it is impossible for us to have seen, without the utmost "anxiety and alarm, all the unexampled circumstances which have "attended the final conclusion of the present peace;-the extensive "and important sacrifices which, without any corresponding conces"sion, this Treaty has added to those already made on our part by "the preliminary articles; the unlooked for and immense accessions "of territory, influence, and power, which it has tacitly confirmed "to France."-(Ibid. p. 697.)

Speech of the Lord Chancellor.-Ibid. p. 725.

"And here he must differ a little from his learned friend in respect to the importance of Treaties solemnly executed between "nation and nation. He had, during twenty years of his profes"sional life, witnessed the growth and improvement of the distinguished talents of his learned brother, with whom he had lived in "habits of uninterrupted friendship; he could not, however, agree "with him in thinking, that Treaties deserved to be treated in the light manner he had treated them. He would, however, assert, "with his learned friend, that most of the conditions of the Treaties, "the omission of the revival of which was complained of by the "noble mover, were from the violent change that the circumstances "of Europe, and more especially of France, had undergone within "the last twenty years, wholly inapplicable to the present Treaty; "and at the same time, all the great and important rights which his "noble friend thought lost and abandoned, because they were not recognized in the definitive Treaty, stood secured on a much stronger basis than any recognition of them by any Treaty what"soever."

;

Speech of Lord Hawkesbury.-Ibid. pp. 761, 762.

"With respect to the definitive Treaty, gentlemen complain of "it on two grounds: namely, for faults of omission and commis❝sion. Under the first class the principal is the non-revival of the "several commercial and political Treaties, and two particular con"ventions. As to the first, I should suppose, if gentlemen would "look into those Treaties, they would not be so very solicitous for "their revival. From the Treaty of Westphalia up to that of "1763, it was the practice, as the system of Europe was perpetually 66 changing, to renew former treaties, with such alterations and addi"tions as suited existing circumstances, until at length these Treaties "became so confused, inconsistent, and contradictory, as to contribute "more to augment litigation than to produce the adjustment of any "difference. If we made any engagements, they should be precise "and explicit not such as those Treaties; besides, we ought to be "cautious how we consented to multiply our engagements. Another "objection that I have to the renewal of those Treaties is, that we "should bind ourselves too much.

แ

"I shall state the former practice as to such renewal of Treaties. "In 1748, when we guaranteed the pragmatic sanction, we also "guaranteed Silesia to Prussia. What, then, if agreeable to such a precedent, we should have to guarantee the Netherlands and "Sardinia to France? I would ask my right honourable friend, "whether this was not a sufficiently strong objection to the renewal "of former Treaties? The situation of Ministers in this case was one "of extreme difficulty; they were rather willing to sacrifice some advantages than place themselves in the dilemma that I have de"scribed; and they determined, if they could not get Europe to do right, they would not be a party to her wrong. I would ask my right honourable friend, whether the renewal of political Treaties, accompanied by such consequences, was so desirable? As to com"mercial Treaties, if any person looked into them, they would be "found not less objectionable than the former. Our Treaty with "Holland gave the Dutch the power of carrying warlike stores over in time of war to an enemy's ports. Would it be advisable, "after the experience of the last war, to renew such a Treaty as "that? Objections equally strong would be found to operate against "the renewal of our former Treaties with France. From these considerations, I think it will scarcely be disputed that it was better to leave commercial arrangements to be hereafter adjusted, than to (6 postpone the conclusion of the definitive Treaty, even if the country was to be left in the state it was in before the preliminaries were "signed."

66

66

66