Cavendish followed up his advantage by moving on the 21st February a series of substantive resolutions condematory of the Articles of the Treaties as being not such as the country had a right to expect; which resolutions were carried by a majority of 207 against 190 votes. The consequence was the resignation of Lord Shelbourne's ministry, and an interregnum which lasted till the beginning of April.

A long interval followed before the signing of the definitive Treaties of Versailles, which took place. on September 3rd, 1783. They were laid before Parliament at the opening of the session, on the 11th December following; when the Earl of Scarborough, in moving the address in the House of Lords, thus referred to the subject:-"The Definitive Articles of pacification have been negociated on the ground of a preliminary treaty digested and formed by an administration which expired on the conclusion of that business. The present ministers naturally felt themselves embarrassed; the preliminaries were such as no good man could approve of; but the national faith was pledged. Under these circumstances the Definitive Treaty has been brought to a conclusion; it is a superstructure which has been raised on a basis laid by men who have ceased to exist as the ministers of the crown."

Does not this read like very mockery? The country saddled with a bad treaty, and having its sole revenge in the dismissal of the Ministers who concocted it! A new Ministry compelled to carry out the bad work of their predecessors, which they had already emphatically condemned! The theory

of the "responsibility" of Ministers is cast into ridicule by such a lame and impotent conclusion as that arrived at in the instance before us.

But is it indeed true, that the fact of the preliminaries of a treaty being once agreed upon, forecloses the whole case in all its details, leaving no possibility of modifying anything in the definitive treaty? Common sense,—and that ought to be a guide, when no duly established principle exists to the contrary, points to an opposite conclusion. The doctrines of the acknowledged authorities, living almost within our own time, tend also the same way. Martens in his 'Précis des Droits des Gens,' lays down the principle that a preliminary treaty may be signed "to serve as the basis of a definitive treaty of peace," but leaving many points of detail open to discussion and arrangement before concluding the latter. The Comte de Garden also, writing in the 'Encyclopédie des Gens du Monde,' whilst adhering to the conventionally accepted doctrine that, "from the earliest times in monarchies, the right of ratifying treaties has been regarded as an exclusive prerogative of the throne," "since the new era of goes on to say that representative governments, a system has been established which consists in counter-balancing that power by the legitimate influence which belongs to other powers, over the affairs of the country. One word in an address moved by the Chamber, the refusal of supplies, the impeachment of ministers, are amongst the efficacious means of causing negociations repugnant to the will of the nation to be

D

annulled." The concluding words of this passage are, it is true, not borne out by the experience of the Treaty of Versailles, nor generally by the modern practice in such matters, but it expounds a theory which appeared to the writer to be reasonable and just, and to which, as we conceive, there would be no difficulty in giving practical efficacy.

But, indeed, the Treaty of Amiens affords an instance, and a remarkable instance, of the adoption of the principle laid down by the Comte de Garden. It may be interesting to note the formalities which, out of deference to parliamentary authority, some remnants of which survived, even in those days, marked the proceedings in this case.

The king in his speech on opening Parliament, referring to the preliminaries said-"Copies of the papers will be forthwith laid before you, and I earnestly hope that the transactions to which they refer will meet with the approbation of my Parliament." The Lords in their Address thanked His Majesty for the promised papers, and assured him that "they would with the utmost diligence take them into their most serious attention; "—the Commons on their part declared that they "would not fail to apply their immediate attention to the transactions to which

they related." On the motion of the Ministry the 3rd November, 1801, was fixed for taking the subject into consideration in both Houses, when addresses were moved which led to long discussions, in which all the details were closely scrutinized.

The Definitive Treaty was negociated at Amiens, where it was signed on the 25th March, 1802. It

differed from the preliminaries in many important particulars, being mostly those which had been already the subjects of discussion in Parliament. The following are some of the principal points in which the two treaties differed. In regard to the Cape of Good Hope, the Preliminary Treaty, Art. 3, provided that "the Port and Cape of Good Hope shall be open to the commerce and navigation of the two contracting parties (Great Britain and France), who shall enjoy therein equal advantages." The Definitive Treaty between France, Spain, the Batavian Republic, and Great Britain stipulated that "the ships of every kind belonging to the other contracting parties shall be allowed to enter the said ports, and there to purchase what provisions they may stand in need of as heretofore, without being liable to pay any other imposts than such as the Batavian Republic compels the ships of its own nation to pay." In regard to Malta the Preliminary Treaty stipulated that "for the purpose of rendering this Island completely independent of the two contracting parties, it shall be placed under the guarantee and protection of a third power to be agreed upon in the Definitive Treaty." The Definitive stipulates (Art. 6) that "the independence of the Islands of Malta, Gozo, and Comino, as well as the present arrangement (making provision for their government under the Knights of the Order) shall be placed under the protection and guarantee of France, Great Britain, Austria, Spain, Russia, and Prussia.” By Art. 12, Sicily was invited to furnish 2000 men to garrison the above places for one year, after the

restoration of the Knights of Malta, or, if the Knights should not then be prepared, "until they shall be replaced by a force deemed sufficient by the great powers." It was added that the ports should be open to all nations. There are several discrepancies between the two Treaties in what related to the payment of the charges on prisoners on either side, and to restitutions to be made to Portugal. There was also an article added in the Definitive Treaty (Art. 18), stipulating for the indemnification of the House of Orange for losses which they had sustained. Finally another additional Article (19) in the Definitive Treaty declared the Treaty common to the Sultan of Turkey, who was to be invited to accede to it; and who accordingly sent in his adhesion to it on the 13th May, 1802. De Koch in his history of the negociations describes several other changes and additions which were proposed, some by Prince Jerome Bonaparte, who attended as the Plenipotentiary for France, but which were not agreed to.

Lord Hawkesbury, in laying the Definitive Treaty on the table of the House of Commons, on the 29th of May, said, "it was the wish of Ministers to adhere to the usage observed on former occasions of this kind, and as there was no instance where any proceeding had been instituted respecting a definitive treaty, after a preliminary treaty had received the approbation of the House. He was aware, however, that it was competent to every member to bring the subject under the consideration of the House, on the ground of a specific objection to any part of it; of it being inconsistent