Poland.

Sound dues.

by which the condition of Poland had been regulated, and subsequent acts of the Russian Government towards the Poles having taken place, in alleged contravention of that treaty, so that the Parliament of England possessed a right to information as to the grounds upon which that condition had been changed, and were justified in expressing their sympathy with the sufferings of Poland, although it might not be expedient for the government to take any formal steps that would be regarded as hostile or offensive by Russia.c

A motion for an address to the crown for a copy of the instructions by the Government of the United States to its officers for the suppression of the slave trade was opposed by the administration, because, although the instructions had been communicated to the British Government under a recent treaty, yet it was no part of the duty of the British Government to communicate them to Parliament, but rather for the United States Government to determine whether they should publish them or not d

But, on March 17, 1865, Lord Palmerston opposed a motion condemnatory of the conduct of Russia towards Poland, on the ground that the records of Parliament already contained a deliberate expression of opinion on the subject, and that it was not desirable to weaken this proceeding by any mere repetition of similar opinions. Such motions, he contended, should only be resorted to in order to obtain from the House once and for all a decisive expression of opinion, which may have the effect of influencing events, or, if necessary, of obtaining from government some action with a view to give effect to the same. The motion was accordingly withdrawn.

On March 16, 1841, a member moved to resolve that, in the opinion of the House of Commons, certain tolls, known as the Sound dues, levied by the King of Denmark on British (and other) shipping were unjust, and required revision. The foreign secretary admitted the fact, and the truth of the general statements urged in its behalf; also, that the grievance was one of long standing; but he declared that negotiations had been recommenced for the removal of the tolls, and that it was therefore inexpedient for the House to interfere. Sir R. Peel (in Opposition at the time) concurred in the inexpediency of interference by the House in foreign negotiations, but considered that, if the crown should be unable to procure redress, the House might properly and advantageously interpose, and fortify the crown by a temperate expression of opinion on the subject, which would doubtless have weight with the Danish Government. By general consent, the present motion was set aside by the previous question, to be renewed at another

Sir R. Peel, in Hans. D. v. 64, pp. 823-825.

d Ib. v. 71, p. 581.

time, if necessary. The House was afterwards informed, in reply to a question, of the satisfactory progress of the negotiations.

of British

The British Government has likewise a right to Protection interfere and demand redress from a foreign govern- subjects. ment whenever there is reason to believe that any British subject had suffered a wrong for which that government was responsible, and had failed to obtain redress. Papers, in such cases, should be submitted to Parliament; and if it should appear that there is any ground of complaint against the Foreign Office, that department would be amenable to parliamentary criticism and censure for the same." But the government have distinctly declined to take up, as international questions, complaints of British subjects against foreign states arising out of private loan transactions; or to interpose, except by good offices, between bondholders and the states by which they may be wronged."

expressed

Bearing in mind the constitutional limits wherein the active interference of Parliament in the affairs of foreign nations is necessarily restrained, there is, nevertheless, an important function fulfilled by the British legislature, as the mouthpiece of an enlightened public Opinions opinion, which calls for special remark. When events in Parlia are transpiring abroad upon which, in the interest of ment on humanity, or of the peace and good government of the affairs. world, it is desirable that British statesmen should have an opportunity of declaring their sentiments, from their place in Parliament-whether by so doing they merely express, with the weight due to their personal character and high official position, the general

* Mir. of Parl. 1841, pp. 790–793. Ib. p. 2364

Affairs of Greece, Hans. D. v. 111, p. 1293; Ib. v. 112, pp. 228, 329, 478, 609-739. Case of the 'Tornado,' Ib. v. 200, p. 2109. Murder of British subjects by Greek brigands, Ib. v. 201, pp. 1123, 1162;

v. 203, pp. 5, 1412.

h Foreign Sec. despatch of Ap. 26, 1871, quoted in Hans. D. v. 225, p. 201. And see observations in H. of Com. on July 21 and Aug. 14, 1876, on the guaranteed Turkish Loan of 1854. And see Hans. D. v. 235, p. 1322.

foreign

Foreign a ffairs.

feelings of the country, or whether they aim at influencing public opinion itself by intelligent and authoritative explanations upon points concerning which they possess peculiar facilities for instructing the public mind-it is customary for some member to call the attention of the House and of the government thereto, in an informal way, or upon a motion for papers —or, if need be, to propose resolutions, to express the sense of the House in regard to the proper action of the British Crown in such a contingency. But, while important beneficial results may follow from the temperate use of this practice, it is liable to great abuse. Discussions upon topics which are beyond the jurisdiction of Parliament to determine should not be provoked except upon grave and fitting occasions. When by the operation of existing treaties, the position or interests of England may be affected by events transpiring in other countries or where there is a reasonable probability that the observations of statesmen and politicians in the British legislature will have a beneficial influence upon the fortunes of the country to which they refer * -they would not be unsuitable, or out of place. But whenever the ministers of the crown discourage or deprecate the expression of opinions in Parliament upon the course of affairs in other countries, it is safer to defer to their guidance, and to refrain from utterances that may be hurtful to the cause which it is

E.g. see the observations of Sir R. Peel and of Ld. John Russell on religious intolerance in Spain, Hans. D. v. 161, pp. 2054, 2072; discussion on the affairs of Denmark, and Holstein, in the H. of Lords, on March 18, 1861; and on the Pope and the Kingdom of Italy, in the Lords, on April 19, 1861; debates on the affairs of Poland, in the Lords, on July 19, 1861, and in the H. of Com. on Feb. 27, 1863. And the debate in the

Commons on the state of Turkey on June 18, 1875; and the debates, in 1877, upon the Eastern Question, especially on the resolutions proposed by Mr. Gladstone. Hans. D. v. 234, pp. 101, 955.

J Hans. D. v. 169, p. 884. And see the debate in the Commons (upon a formal motion), Hans. D. v. 190, p. 1983, on the law of expatriation.

Sir F. Goldsmid and Ld. Palmerston, Ib. v. 167, pp. 1171, 1195.

desired to promote, and that might even operate prejudicially upon the interests of the British nation.'

cluding

We have now passed under review some of the Conprerogatives of the British Crown, and have endea- remarks. voured to point out, in the light of precedent, and with the help of recognised authority in the interpretation of constitutional questions, the proper functions of Parliament in relation thereto. We have shown that the exercise of these prerogatives has been entrusted, by the usages of the Constitution, to the responsible ministers of the crown, to be wielded in the king's name and behalf, for the interests of the state; subject always to the royal approval, and to the general sanction and control of Parliament. Parliament itself, we have seen, is one of the councils of the crown, but a council of deliberation and advice, not a council of administration. Into the details of administration a parliamentary assembly is, essentially, unfit to enter; and any attempt to discharge such functions, under the specious pretext of reforming abuses, or of rectifying corrupt influences, would only lead to greater evils, and must inevitably result in the sway of a tyrannical and irresponsible democracy. Instead of the function. of governing, for which,' says Mill, such an assembly is radically unfit, its proper office is to watch and control the government; to throw the light of publicity on its acts; to compel a full exposition and justification of all of them which anyone considers questionable; to censure them if found to merit condemnation; and if the men who compose the government abuse their trust, or fulfil it in a manner which conflicts with the deliberate sense of the nation, to expel them from office' -or, rather, compel them to retire, by an unmistakable expression of the will of Parliament. Instead of attempting to decide upon matters of administration

Hans. D. v. 195, p. 362.

m

m

Mill, Rep. Govt. p. 104.

by its own vote, the proper duty of a representative assembly is to take care that the persons who have to decide them are the proper persons,' ' to see that those individuals are honestly and intelligently chosen, and to interfere no further with them; except by unlimited latitude of suggestion and criticism, and by applying or withholding the final seal of national assent.'"

n

Mill, Rep. Govt. pp. 94, 106. Functions of Representative Bodies' The whole chapter 'On the Proper is deserving of a careful study.