as was attempted by the Treaty of Madrid, concluded by Chap. IV. that monarch; and that not merely upon the ground that he was a prisoner, but that the assent of the nation, represented in the States-General, was essential to the validity of the treaty. The cession of the province of Burgundy was therefore annulled, as contrary to the fundamental laws of the kingdom; and the provincial States of that duchy, according to Mezeray, declared, that "never having been other than subjects of the crown of France, they would die in that allegiance; and if abandoned by the king, they would take up arms, and maintain by force their independence, rather than pass under a foreign dominion." But when the ancient feudal constitution of France was gradually abolished by the disuse of the States-General, and the absolute monarchy became firmly established under Richelieu and Louis XIV., the authority of ceding portions of the public territory, as the price of peace, passed into the hands of the king, in whom all the other powers of government were concentrated. The different constitutions established in France, subsequently to the Revolution of 1789, limited this authority in the hands of the Executive in various degrees. The provision in the Constitution of 1795, by which the recently-conquered countries on the left bank of the Rhine were annexed to the French territory, became an insuperable obstacle to the conclusion of peace in the conferences at Lisle. By the Constitutional Charter of 1830, the king is invested with the power of making peace, without any limitation of this authority, other than that which is implied in the general distribution of the constitutional powers of the government. Still it is believed that, according to the general understanding of French public jurists, the assent of the Chambers, clothed with the forms of a legislative act, is considered essential to the ultimate validity of a treaty ceding any portion of the national territory. The extent and limits of the territory being defined by the municipal laws, the treaty-making power is not considered sufficient to repeal those laws. Part IV. In Great Britain, the treaty-making power, as a branch § 542. of the regal prerogative, has in theory no limits; but it is Treatymaking power practically limited by the general controlling authority of Parliament; whose approbation is necessary to carry into effect a treaty, by which the existing territorial arrangements of the empire are altered. of Great Britain. § 543. Treaty of a Con federation. In confederated governments, the extent of the treatymaking power making power, in this respect, must depend upon the nature of the confederation. If the union consists of a system of confederated States, each retaining its own sovereignty complete and unimpaired, it is evident that the federal head, even if invested with the general power of making treaties of peace for the confederacy, cannot lawfully alienate the whole or any portion of the territory of any member of the union, without the express assent of that member. Such was the theory of the ancient Germanic Constitution; the dismemberment of its territory was contrary to the fundamental laws and maxims of the empire; and such is believed to be the actual constitution of the present Germanic Confederation. This theory of the public law of Germany has often been compelled to yield in practice to imperious necessity; such as that which forced the cession to France of the territories belonging to the States of the empire, on the left bank of the Rhine, by the treaty of Luneville, in 1800. Even in the case of a supreme Federal government, or composite State, like that of the United States. of America, it may, perhaps, be doubted how far the mere general treaty-making power, vested in the federal head, necessarily carries with it that of alienating the territory of any member of the union without its consent. $ 544. Effects of a treaty of peace. The effect of a treaty of peace is to put an end to the war, and to abolish the subject of it. It is an agreement to waive all discussion concerning the respective rights and claims of the parties, and to bury in oblivion the original causes of the war. It forbids the revival of the same war, by resuming hostilities for the original cause which first kindled it, or for whatever may have occurred in the course of it. But the reciprocal stipulation of perpetual peace and amity between the parties does not Chap. IV. imply that they are never again to make war against each other for any cause whatever. The peace relates to the war which it terminates; and is perpetual, in the sense that the war cannot be revived for the same cause. This will not, however, preclude the right to claim and resist, if the grievances which originally kindled the war be repeated-for that would furnish a new injury and a new cause of war, equally just with the former. If an abstract right be in question between the parties, on which the treaty of peace is silent, it follows, that all previous complaints and injury, arising under such claim, are thrown into oblivion, by the amnesty necessarily implied, if not expressed; but the claim itself is not thereby settled either one way or the other. In the absence of express renunciation or recognition, it remains open for future discussion. And even a specific arrangement of a matter in dispute, if it be special and limited, has reference only to that particular mode of asserting the claim, and does not preclude the party from any subsequent pretensions to the same thing on other grounds. Hence the utility in practice of requiring a general renunciation of all pretensions to the thing in controversy, which has the effect of precluding for ever the assertion of the claim in any mode (c). The treaty of peace does not extinguish claims founded upon debts contracted or injuries inflicted previously to the war, and unconnected with its causes, unless there be an express stipulation to that effect. Nor does it affect private rights acquired antecedently to the war, or private injuries unconnected with the causes which produced the war. Hence debts previously contracted between the respective subjects, though the remedy for their recovery is suspended during the war, are revived on the restoration of peace, unless actually confiscated, in the meantime, in the rigorous exercise of the strict rights of war, contrary to the milder practice of recent times. There are (c) Vattel, Droit des Gens, liv. iv. ch. 2, §§ 19—21. Part IV. $545. Uti possidetis the basis of every treaty of even cases where debts contracted, or injuries committed, between the respective subjects of the belligerent nations during the war, may become the ground of a valid claim, as in the case of ransom-bills, and of contracts made by prisoners of war for subsistence, or in the course of trade carried on under a license. In all these cases, the remedy may be asserted subsequently to the peace (d). The treaty of peace leaves everything in the state in which it found it, unless there be some express stipulapeace, unlers tion to the contrary. The existing state of possession is be expressed. maintained, except so far as altered by the terms of the the contrary $546. Effect of restoration of treaty of peace. treaty. If nothing be said about the conquered country or places, they remain with the conqueror, and his title cannot afterwards be called in question. During the continuance of the war, the conqueror in possession has only a usufructuary right, and the latent title of the former sovereign continues, until the treaty of peace, by its silent operation, or express provisions, extinguishes his title for ever (e). The restoration of the conquered territory to its original territory by a Sovereign, by the treaty of peace, carries with it the restoration of all persons and things which have been temporarily under the enemy's dominion, to their original state. This general rule is applied, without exception, to real property or immovables. The title acquired in war to this species of property, until confirmed by a treaty of peace, confers a mere temporary right of possession. The proprietary right cannot be transferred by the conqueror to a third party, so as to entitle him to claim. against the former owner, on the restoration of the territory to the original sovereign. If, on the other hand, the conquered territory is ceded by the treaty of peace to the conqueror, such an intermediate transfer is thereby confirmed, and the title of the purchaser becomes valid and complete. In respect to personal property or (d) Kent's Comment. vol. i. p. 168, 5th ed. (e) Grotius, de Jur. Bel. ac Pac. lib. iii. cap. 6, §§ 4, 5. Vattel, Droit des Gens, liv. iii. ch. 13, §§ 197, 198. Martens, Précis du Droit des Gens, liv. iii. ch. 4, § 282. Klüber, Droit des Gens Moderne de l'Europe, §§ 254–259. movables, a different rule is applied. The title of the Chap. IV. enemy to things of this description is considered complete against the original owner after twenty-four hours' possession, in respect to booty on land. The same rule was formerly considered applicable to captures at sea; but the more modern usage of maritime nations requires a formal sentence of condemnation as prize of war, in order to preclude the right of the original owner to restitution on payment of salvage. But since the jus postliminii does not, strictly speaking, operate after the peace, if the treaty of peace contains no express stipulation respecting captured property, it remains in the condition in which the treaty finds it, and is thus tacitly ceded to the actual possessor. The jus postlimini is a right which belongs exclusively to a state of war; and therefore a transfer to a neutral, before the peace, even without a judicial sentence of condemnation, is valid, if there has been no recovery or recapture before the peace. The intervention of peace covers all defects of title, and vests a lawful possession in the neutral, in the same manner as it quiets the title of the hostile captor himself (ƒ). $547. time the A treaty of peace binds the contracting parties from From what the time of its signature. Hostilities are to cease between treaty of them from that time, unless some other period be provided meuces its in the treaty itself. But the treaty binds the subjects operation. of the belligerent nations only from the time it is notified to them. Any intermediate acts of hostility committed by them before it was known, cannot be punished as criminal acts, though it is the duty of the State to make restitution of the property seized subsequently to the conclusion of the treaty; and in order to avoid disputes respecting the consequences of such acts, it is usual to provide, in the treaty itself, the periods at which hostilities are to cease in different places. Grotius intimates an opinion that individuals are not responsible, even civiliter, for hostilities thus continued after the conclusion of peace, so long as they are ignorant of the fact, (f) Vattel, liv. iii. ch. 14, §§ 209, 212, 216. The Purissima Conception, 6 C. Rob. 45; The Sophia, Ibid. 138. |