24

Errors of Modern Diplomacy.

entered pursuant to your address above mentioned.” But there was a signal disingenuousness in this message, inasmuch as it was delivered five days after the signature of a Second Partition Treaty, (London, 13th March), yet made no mention of it. Nor did Parliament pass over the circumstance in silence. In the Commons an address was adopted to thank His Majesty for his promise of communicating from time to time the progress of these negociations; "and also, to lay before His Majesty the ill consequences of the Treaty of Partition (passed under the Great Seal of England during the sitting of Parliament, and without the advice of the same) to the peace of Europe, whereby such large territories of the King of Spain's dominions were to to be delivered up to the French King." The king in his reply adroitly evaded this complaint; he repeated that he "should continue to inform them of the progress of negociations," and that he was willing to receive their advice thereon, “being fully persuaded that nothing would contribute more effectually to the happiness of this kingdom, and the peace of Europe, than the concurrence of Parliament in all my negociations, and a good understanding between me and my people." The Lords also discussed the conduct of the king in this matter, in no pleasant mood; affording strong evidence of the feeling which prevailed still among public men upon this great constitutional question.

Queen Anne also habitually consulted with her Parliament on all matters of state policy. On opening the sessions of 1711, she expressed her joy

at being able to announce that, "notwithstanding the acts of those who delight in war, both time and place are appointed for opening the treaty of a general peace," giving at the same time, an account of the preliminaries. Thereupon, in the Lords, the Earl of Nottingham, after expatiating on the insufficiency and precariousness of these preliminaries, moved an amendment to the address, to the effect "that in the opinion of this House no peace can be safe or honourable to Great Britain or Europe, if Spain and the Indies be allotted to any branch of the House of Bourbon;"-which amendment, after a violent debate, was carried by 62 votes against 54, "against the utmost efforts of the Court." This address having been presented to the Queen she replied that, "she should be sorry anyone could think she would not do her utmost to recover Spain and the Indies from the House of Bourbon ;"without one word of rebuke for any supposed interference with the royal prerogative. In the Commons a similar amendment was rejected by 232 against 105 votes. Again, on the 6th June, 1712, the Queen came down to the House of Peers, and stated to both Houses, in a long speech, "the terms upon which peace might be made;"-for, as we are told, "such was the caution of the Lord Treasurer, that he was determined to conclude nothing without the previous sanction of Parliament." After which, we read that "the Commons, with little difficulty, and the House of Lords, after high debate," presented addresses approving of the course proposed; soon after which, Parliament was prorogued. This,

it will be observed, was in June, 1712; and the Treaties whose conditions were thus submitted to, and debated in Parliament, were not signed until the months of April and July in the following year.

ENCROACHMENTS UNDER THE HOUSE OF HANOVER.

IT was after the accession of the House of Hanover that the wholesome and constitutional principle of parliamentary control in state affairs first began to be seriously and systematically invaded. A clause had been introduced into the Act of Settlement for the very purpose of restricting the power lately usurped by the crown in this respect, and which provided that, in case of the succession falling to "any person not being a native of this Kingdom of England, this nation shall not be obliged to engage in any war for the defence of any dominions or territories which do not belong to the Crown of England without the consent of Parliament." Upon the principle that the exception proves the rule, it might be alleged that this especial provision recognized the general prerogative which it sought to restrict. But a great constitutional principle cannot be got rid of inferentially, and by a side wind. An encroachment of royal authority, even of centuries' duration, cannot supercede a fundamental right of the people.

But the consultative powers of Parliament were not all at once abruptly repudiated; nor were they suddenly, abjectly, or lightly abandoned. The aggressions of the Court party were gradual and insidious. In 1727, when George I. addressed

Parliament for supplies for the defence of the country against the dangers by the secret articles of a treaty which had been entered into between Spain and the Emperor, the patriotic party in opposition protested against being called upon to provide against imaginary dangers, declaring, that "on this occasion the advice of the House might be quite as necessary as its support; that the question of peace and war was the most momentous that could fall under the cognizance of that assembly," and demanded that the necessary papers should be laid before them, to enable them to deliberate upon the subject. On a division, however, the new system of foreign policy was supported against these arguments by 251 against 81 votes.

Under George II., in 1729, when petitions were presented to both Houses of Parliament from the great mercantile towns, complaining of the obstructions and depredations committed by the Spaniards in the West Indies, the House of Commons, in grand committee, took upon it, without any saving of royal prerogative in such matters, to pass a resolution to the effect "that the Spaniards had violated the treaties subsisting between the two countries," and addressed the king, requesting him to use his utmost endeavours to procure redress for the past, and security for the future; which, in his reply, "he assured them he would not fail to do." In 1731, the king came down to Parliament with a new batch of complications, and a new demand for supplies, saying: "The present critical juncture seems in a particular manner to deserve your atten

tion, and you need not be told with what impatience the resolutions of this Parliament are everywhere waited for and expected;" and adding, "if it should be necessary, I shall not fail to ask further advice and assistance of my Parliament, according to the circumstances of public affairs, and so soon as any proper occasion occurs." In reply to this, the opposition protested "that our ancestors were never so complaisant as to declare their approval of measures without full and regular information respecting them." And then, after discussion of the measures said to be in contemplation, an amendment was moved, "that His Majesty should be desired not to concur in any war against the Emperor, either in Flanders or on the Rhine." The Court party, with Walpole at their head, protested against this as "an encroachment on His Majesty's prerogative;" which brought up Heathcote, who declared "that the offering of advice to His Majesty could never be regarded by him as an encroachment upon his prerogative, since it was the proper business of Parliament, which was the king's great council, to advise the crown in all matters of importance; it was what many parliaments had done before, and what they were obliged in their duty to do;" and then proceeded to debate all the questions in issue-the Speaker never interposing, which he ought to have done, if he considered that any interference with the royal prerogative was involved in the discussion of the matters in question.

George II. in opening parliament, on November 12, 1747, said: "By the advice of my Parliament, I