govern ment to reasons informally communicated to both Houses of Parliament on the day of prorogation, although its formal ratification had not been completed. The same course was taken with regard to the treaty of Washington in 1871, and in the case of the French Commercial Treaty in 1873, Right of Nevertheless, the prerogative of the crown in this particular has not been abandoned, and it is still in the withhold discretion of government to refrain from communicating any treaty, especially a treaty of peace, to either House of Parliament until after it has been ratified.* informa tion. Treaties between foreign powers, to which Great Britain is not a party, are not communicated to Parliament; although copies thereof may be in the possession of the British Government." On March 3, 1873, Lord Campbell moved that the House of Lords should address her Majesty, praying that all treaties or conventions by which disputed questions between Great Britain and a foreign power are referred to arbitration may be laid upon the table of both Houses six weeks before they are definitively ratified. But the leaders of the government and of the Opposition objected to this motion; it was negatived without a division. On the following day, a motion in the House of Commons, that all treaties with foreign powers ought to be made conditionally on the approval of Parliament, was negatived without a division. After the treaty of Washington of 1871 had been signed, but before its ratification, the government was induced to communicate it to Parliament. Whereupon, on June 12, Earl Russell moved, in the House of Lords, an address to her Majesty praying that a certain novel principle in the said treaty for the settlement of the Alabama claims might not be sanctioned. Ministers, while anxious for discussion in Parliament upon the treaty, deprecated the adoption of the proposed motion. The Earl of Derby (a leading Opposition peer) was of the same opinion. He pointed out that the agreement of the House of Lords to the resolution would not lead to the breaking off of the treaty, unless concurred in by the House of Commons. And that such a question, being vital to the existence of a ministry, would be treated as one of confidence by the House of Commons, and not Chan. of the Excheq. Hans. D. v. 203, pp. 1759, 1790. Ib. v. 206, p. 1108. * Mr. Gladstone, Hans. D. v. 214, p. 470. " Mir. of Parl. 1834, p. 2858. Ib. v. 214, p. 173. determined upon the merits of the case. Accordingly, after full debate, the motion was negatived without a division. V On June 29 Lord Oranmore moved an address to the Queen conveying the deep regret felt by the House of Lords at her Majesty's having been advised to sign a treaty with the United States which was unbecoming the honour and dignity of this country. But the motion was negatived without a division.w violations It is unnecessary and inexpedient for the House of Alleged Commons to interfere in any way, or declare its opinion, of treaties on any matter of alleged violation of treaty, or which concerns the foreign relations of Great Britain with other countries; unless at the instigation of the executive government, and with a view to powers or opinions sought for by the executive; as matters affecting our relations with foreign countries are prerogative. But questions may be put to the administration in Parliament, in reference to alleged infractions of treaties by foreign powers, and for the purpose of directing the attention of government thereto. Moreover, it is neither regular to ask, nor is it con venient to answer, questions relative to treaties which are yet pending.' The initiation of a foreign policy and the conducting of negotiations with foreign powers appertains exclusively to the executive government, who are responsible for the course and issue of the same; and should not be interfered with by Parliament, who necessarily can only possess imperfect information upon the subject, either by advice or by vote. So long as War, were at variance with the y See Ib. v. 157, pp. 749, 757; v. Mir. of Parl. 1841, p. 1032. BB Treaties still pend ing. 1 Parlia ment ought not to legislate in matters negotia tion. Parliament is satisfied with the general principles upon which negotiations are being conducted, and approves of the general policy of the government, it should abstain from all interference with pending negotiations.b So strictly is this rule observed, that, in 1839, a Bill introduced by government for the Suppression of the Portuguese Slave Trade was rejected by the House of Lords, at the instigation of the Duke of Wellington, Lord Lyndhurst, and other eminent statesmen, exproper for pressly on the ground that Parliament ought not to be called upon to act in a matter which should properly be effected by negotiation and by the action of the executive government on their sole responsibility. After the rejection of the Bill, an address to the crown was adopted by the House of Lords, urging negotiations with foreign powers to suppress the traffic in slaves, and the adoption of other measures by government to that end, especially as regards the Portuguese slave trade, and giving assurances of the readiness of the House to concur with the Commons in whatever measure might be necessary to bring about such a desirable result. To this address a suitable reply was given by the crown. At the same time, the ministry introduced another Bill on the subject, which was free from the principal objections pointed out in the former measure. The Duke of Wellington, however, was still dissatisfied, and adhered to his opinion that the objects intended ought to be effected by order in council, without the intervention of Parliament. In its progress through the Lords, the Bill underwent some important alterations, rendering it more comformable to constitutional law and usage; and it was finally agreed to by both Houses.c On June 4, 1872, Earl Russell moved that the House of Lords do address her Majesty, praying that proceedings may be stayed before the arbitrators at Geneva, under the Treaty of Washington, until the indirect claims, included in the American case, shall have been withdrawn; inasmuch as it is understood by her Majesty's government that these claims do not come within the province of of both Houses certain days before See the speeches of Mr. Disraeli far as they can be produced without public injury or inconvenience; see Mir. of Parl. 1830, p. 671; 1840, pp. 2047, 2049; 1841, p. 1507. Hans. D. v. 187, p. 1492. Confidential communications from foreign powers are never laid before Parliament without previous communication with the powers concerned. Disraeli, Tb. v. 230, p. 885. And see ante, p. 357. See Parl. D. 1839, passim. Ann. Reg. 1839, pp. 242–255. the arbitrators. Earl Granville (foreign secretary) declared that such an address would be considered as a vote of censure. On June 6, upon receiving certain satisfactory assurances from government, Earl Russell withdrew his motion. On June 11, Lord Oranmore moved a similar address, which was put and negatived without debate or division. Result of tions to be made negotia known to ment. After the conclusion of important negotiations with the representatives of any foreign state or states, it is usual for the government to communicate the result to Parliament, and to declare what is the course which Parlia the government propose to take in regard to the to the questions involved therein. If either House should be of opinion that the government has failed in its duty in any respect, it is competent for them to take any line of conduct they may think proper, in order to make known to the crown their opinions upon the subject. For, while the initiation of a foreign policy is the prerogative of the crown, to be exercised under the responsibility of constitutional ministers, it is the duty of Parliament, when the result of the negotiations conducted by ministers has been communicated to them, to criticise, support, or condemn that policy, as they may deem the interests of the nation shall require.' mark in 1864. Thus, on July 4, 1864, after the protocols of the conference held Invasion in London, in the summer of 1864, between the representatives of of DenEuropean powers, to consider of the dissensions between Denmark and Germany, had been laid before Parliament, Mr. Disraeli moved in the House of Commons a vote of censure upon ministers, in the shape of an address to the Queen, to represent that the course pursued by the government had failed to maintain their avowed policy of upholding the integrity and independence of Denmark, had lowered the just influence of this country in the counsels of Europe, and thereby diminished the securities for peace. An amendment, to declare that the independence of Denmark and the security of its possessions in Schleswig-Holstein ought to be guaranteed, was negatived without a division. Another amendment, approving of the conduct of government in abstaining from armed interference Mr. Gladstone, Hans. D. v. 199, p. 325. • Earl Russell, Ib. v. 176, p. 323. Whether the crown may dispossess itself of assent of Parliament. in the war, for the defence of Denmark, was put, and agreed to. On July 8, a similar vote of censure was proposed in the House of Lords; an amendment, to modify the terms thereof, was put, and negatived, and the main question was agreed to. It is noteworthy that this vote was carried by means of proxies, for, of the peers present, there were 123 non-contents to 119 contents; but, by the aid of proxies, this decision was reversed, and the total majority in favour of the vote of censure was 9, there being 177 in favour and 168 against it. On March 30, 1871, the course taken by government in accepting a proposal for the assembling of a conference in London to revise the obligations imposed territory, by the Treaty of Paris, of 1856, was made the subject without of a motion of censure in the House of Commons, which motion, after a long debate, was negatived, without a division. The question whether the crown has power by its prerogative to cede British territory to a foreign state, except under a treaty of peace, or to dispossess itself of its sovereignty over any portion of its dominions, without the assent of Parliament, has been frequently discussed, and still remains doubtful." This question, so far as regards the right of the crown to surrender to a foreign state a part of its territory, was supposed to have been settled in the affirmative, on the authority of Lord Chancellor Thurlow, but Lord Campbell disputed the correctness of the dictum of his predecessor. The point again arose in 1863 upon the cession of the Ionian Islands to Greece, when it was argued by Earl Grey, in favour of the crown; also by * Hans. D. v. 176, p. 1190. See a digest of cases and opinions on the subject in Forsyth, Const. Law, pp. 182-186. And the debate in H. of Commons, in 1854, in relation to the issue of a royal proclamation abandoning the sovereignty of the crown over the Orange River territory, Hans. D. v. 133, pp. 5387. And see Amos, Fifty Years Eng. Const. p. 413. Also observations in both Houses in regard to the proposed transfer of the Gambia Settlement to France. Hans. D. v. 201, p. 1843; v. 203, pp. 339, 351; v. 206, p. 153; v. 226, pp. 444; v. 227, p. 374; v. 228, p. 264. i Campbell's Chanc. v. 5, pp. 555, 556 n. Smith's Parl. Rememb. 1863, pp. 13, 141. Hans. D. v. 169, p. 57. |