" étendue aux princes de sa ligne, et à ceux de la ligne ducal qui ont "combattu dans les rangs des alliés, qui ont versé leur sang, qui ont "tout sacrifié pour la cause commune? La confiscation, que les "nations éclairées ont bannie de leurs codes, serait-elle introduite "au dix-neuvième siècle dans le droit général de l'Europe? Ou la "confiscation d'un royaume serait-elle moins odieuse que celle d'une "simple chaumière? "Quand Charles-Quint, chef de l'empire, dont Jean-Frédéric n'était "que vassal, et dont, conséquemment, il était justiciable, transféra "l'électorat de Saxe, il ne le transféra point a une autre maison. 66 L'Europe réunie, si elle pouvait juger le roi de Saxe, serait-elle "moins juste que ne le fut Charles-Quint? Les puissances alliées qui "ont voulu restaurer l'Europe, veulent-elles, d'ailleurs, imiter les "exemples que leur offre le règne de Charles-Quint? "En toute chose, considérons les suites. Agir comme si la conquête "seule donnait la souveraineté, c'est anéantir le droit public de "l'Europe, et la placer sous l'empire exécutif de l'arbitraire et de la "force. Se constituer juge d'un souverain, c'est sanctionner toutes "les révolutions; le tenir pour condamné, lorsqu'il n'est pas et qu'il "ne peut pas même être jugé, c'est fouler aux pieds les premiers "principes de la justice naturelle et de la raison même. "Maintenant, à qui la disposition que l'on prétend faire de la Saxe "serait-elle utile? 66 66 "A la Prusse? Deux millions de sujets qui, d'ici à plus d'un "siècle peut-être, ne s'affectionneraient point à la dynastie nouvelle, qui se sentiraient opprimés, et croiraient légitime tout moyen de "sortir d'oppression, seraient pour elle une cause permanente d'embarras, d'inquiétude et de danger. On veut fortifier la Prusse, on "l'aura réellement affaiblie. Est-ce, d'ailleurs, la Prusse qui a droit "de s'approprier les biens de ses voisins? Oublie-t-on la protection. qu'elle a donnée à l'Allemagne par les négociations à Bâle, à Rastadt, " à Ratisbonne, en 1805, à Vienne. 66 "A l'Allemagne ? Pour savoir quels sont ses intérêts, il n'y a "qu'à consulter son vou. Les princes n'ignorent assurément pas ce qu'ils doivent désirer ou craindre; or tous, à l'exception d'un seul, "disent que c'en est fait de l'Allemagne, si la Saxe est sacrifiée. "La situation de l'Allemagne est un des obstacles les plus forts à "la réunion de la Saxe à la Prusse; mille feux y couvent la cendre. "Cette réunion serait peut-être l'étincelle qui embraserait tout! Si "cela arrivait, la France resterait-elle spectatrice tranquille de ces "discordes civiles? Il est plutôt à croire qu'elle en profiterait, et "peut-être ferait-elle sagement d'en profiter. 66 "A l'Angleterre ? Elle, à qui il faut surtout des marchés, que gagnerait-elle, si l'une des plus grandes villes de commerce de l'Allemagne, théâtre d'une des plus grandes foires du pays et de l'Europe, et jusqu'ici sous la domination d'un prince avec lequel "l'Angleterre ne pourrait jamais avoir des démêlés, passait sous la "domination d'une puissance avec laquelle elle ne peut être sûre de conserver une éternelle paix ? 66 66 "Un autre prétexte allégué en faveur de la réunion de la Saxe à la "Prusse, c'est qu'on veut faire de cette dernière une barrière contre "la Russie. Mais les souverains des deux pays sont unis par des "liens, qui font, que tant qu'ils vivront tous deux, l'un n'aura rien à "craindre de l'autre; cette précaution ne pourrait donc regarder qu'un avenir fort éloigné; mais que diraient ceux qui appuient avec tant de chaleur le projet de réunion, si, témoins de cet avenir, "ils voyaient la Prusse s'appuyer de la Russie, pour obtenir en Allemagne une extension qu'ils lui auraient facilitée, et appuyer à "son tour la Russie dans des entreprises sur l'empire ottoman? "Non-seulement la chose est possible, elle est encore probable, parce "qu'elle est dans l'ordre naturel. "L'union de l'Autriche et de la Prusse est nécessaire au repos et à "la sûreté de l'Allemagne; mais la disposition qu'on prétend faire "de la Saxe, serait la chose du monde la plus propre à rallumer une rivalité qui a duré jusqu'aux désastres de la Prusse, et que ces désastres ont suspendue, mais n'ont pas peut être éteinte. 66 Ainsi, ces dispositions iraient contre le but même qui les aurait "fait faire, et d'un premier mal naîtraient une foule de maux. Re"connaissons donc que l'injustice est un mauvais fondement, sur lequel le monde politique ne saurait bâtir que pour sa ruine." (a) APPENDIX X. PAGE 247. LOANS BY SUBJECTS OF NEUTRAL STATES TO BELLIGERENTS. The following opinion was given in 1823, by the Law Officers of the Crown, on Subscriptions or Loans to one of two Belligerent States by the subjects of a Neutral Power. It was, I believe, taken in reference to Loans contracted in England to aid the Greeks in their war of independence : "To the Right Hon. George Canning, M.P., &c. "Doctors' Commons, June 17, 1823. Sir, We have been honoured with your commands signified "in Mr. Planta's letter of the 12th inst., stating that you were desirous "that we should report our opinion upon the following questions: "1. Whether subscriptions for the use of one of two belligerent "States by individual subjects of a nation professing and maintaining "a strict neutrality between them be contrary to the law of nations, (a) See Protest of the King of Saxony, November 4, 1814, on the subject, in the same work, p. 203. 66 "and constitute such an offence as the other belligerent would have a right to consider as an act of hostility on the part of the neutral "Government? "2. If such individual voluntary subscriptions in favour of one "belligerent would give such just cause of offence to the other, "whether loans for the same purpose would give the like cause of "offence? "3. And if not, where is the line to be drawn between a loan "at an easy or mere nominal rate of interest, or a loan with a previous "understanding that interest would never be exacted, and a gratuitous "voluntary subscription? 66 "In obedience to your commands we beg leave to report that we "have taken the same into our consideration, and we are of opinion "that subscriptions of the nature above alluded to, for the use and avowedly for the support of one of two belligerent States against "the other, entered into by individual subjects of a Government professing and maintaining neutrality, are inconsistent with that neutrality and contrary to the law of nations; but we conceive that the "other belligerent would not have a right to consider such subscrip"tions as constituting an act of hostility on the part of the Government, although they might afford just ground of complaint if carried 66 to any considerable extent. "With respect to loans, if entered into merely with commercial "views, we think, according to the opinions of writers on the law of "nations and the practice which has prevailed, they would not be an infringement of neutrality; but if, under colour of a loan, a gratui"tous contribution was afforded without interest, or with mere "nominal interest, we think such a transaction would fall within "the opinion given in answer to the first question. "We have the honour to be, &c. "CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON (King's Advocate). "R. GIFFORD (Attorney-General, afterwards "Master of the Rolls). "J. S. COPLEY (Solicitor-General, afterwards "Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst)." Report of His Majesty's Law Officers on the Means of Proceeding legally against Individuals and Corporations engaged in Subscriptions to Belligerent Powers. 66 "Lincoln's Inn, June 21, 1823. "Sir,-We have been honoured with your commands, signified "to us by Mr. Planta in his letter dated the 18th inst., in which he states, with reference to the queries proposed to His Majesty's Law "Officers in his letter of the 13th inst., he was directed by you fur"ther to ask for our opinion whether, having regard to the municipal "law of this country, there exists any, and what, means of proceeding 30 VOL. III. "legally against individuals and corporations engaged in such subscriptions as were described in those queries. "We have accordingly taken the same into consideration, and beg "leave to report that, reasoning upon general principles, we should "be inclined to say that such subscriptions in favour of one of two "belligerent States, being inconsistent with the neutrality declared "by the Government of the country and with the law of nations, "would be illegal, and subject the parties concerned in them to pro"secution for a misdemeanour, on account of their obvious tendency "to interrupt the friendship subsisting between this country and "the other belligerent, and to involve the State in dispute, and "possibly in the calamities of war. It is proper, however, to add "that subscriptions of a similar nature have formerly been entered "into (particularly the subscription in favour of the people of Poland "in 1792 and 1793), without any notice having been taken of them by the public authorities of the country, and without any complaint having, as far as we can learn, been made by the Powers whose "interests might be supposed to have been affected by such sub"scriptions. Neither can we find any instance of a prosecution "having been instituted for an offence of this nature, or any hint "at such a proceeding in any period of our history. 66 "We think, therefore, even if it could be proved that the money "had been actually sent in pursuance of the subscription, it is not "likely that a prosecution against the individuals concerned in such 66 a measure would be successful. "But, until the money be actually sent, the only mode of proceed"ing, as we conceive, would be for counselling or conspiring to assist "with money one of the belligerents in the contest with the other, "a prosecution attended with still greater difficulty. "We beg leave further to report that no criminal proceeding can "be instituted against a corporation for contributing its funds to "such a subscription, but that the individual members who may be "proved to have acted in the transaction can alone be made criminally "responsible. "We have the honour to be, &c. "R. GIFFORD. The question was mooted again in 1873, on the subject of subscriptions raised in England on behalf of the Carlists, that is, the supporters of the Prince who claims to be Charles VII. of Spain (a). Ôn the 25th of April, the present Prime Minister spoke as follows:Mr. Gladstone.-"The question which has been put to me by (a) See Parl. Debates, House of Commons, March 1, 1873. Letter from the Editor of the Westminster Gazette, in Times of April 9, and Article from the Economist in Times of April 14, 1873. 66 66 "my hon. friend touches a subject of very great delicacy and of very great difficulty, as well as of very great importance, and I felt the difficulty before, when, in giving a very short answer to a question upon the same subject, I conveyed my reply in terms perhaps too "sharply defined. The state of the law was then generally described 66 as we are advised it exists. There has been since that time some public discussion adverting to the fact that the view of the law, or at least the verbal expression of that view, has not at all times been quite uniform on the part of the various law officers of the Crown, "and in particular reference has been made to an opinion given by the law officers in the time of Mr. Canning with reference to "certain subscriptions which were then being levied, I think, for purposes connected with the very same country which has afforded 66 my hon. friend the occasion of his question. Generally, the opinion given then was to the effect that that proceeding was not according to law; but it was limited in an important manner by two qualifications, which I quote from the documents of the period. The first "of these was that a foreign Government would not, in the opinion "of the law officers of 1823, be entitled to consider such a subscription as constituting any act of hostility on the part of the "British Government; and the second referred to that which is really the practical question in the matter, much more than an "abstract inquiry about legality-namely, the possibility of repressing by prosecution. The law officers of that date advised that it was not likely such a measure as an indictment founded upon this subscription would be successful; and I believe they could not find "that at any period an attempt to bring home an offence, if offence "there be, by indictment had been made. That may be enough to say on the subject of variation, if there be a variation, of opinion. "I said on the former occasion that it was of course impossible for us to go beyond the law. If my hon. friend asks me whether I "state that drily as wishing it to be understood that we look with approval or with indifference upon subscriptions of this kind, I "venture to say to him that that is as far as possible from being the case. Subscriptions of this kind, in the present instance perhaps very particularly, but also as a general rule, are in our judginent open to great objections-first of all, because they tend to create แ causes either of complaint or of estrangement between friendly "Governments; and, secondly, because they sometimes have the "effect of grossly misleading the opinion of Europe, or of many portions of Europe, as to the state of opinion in this country. For "instance, we are given to understand in this particular case that many persons in Europe have been led to believe, in consequence "of the fact that an advertisement has appeared in some newspaper "calling for subscriptions to support the Carlist rising in Spain against "the Government which is, at all events provisionally, in a certain sense, established, that on that account the feeling of the British 66 |