CHAPTER XVIII. GREAT BRITAIN. 8115. Power to Make Treaties a Prerogative of the Crown. -The power to conclude treaties is in Great Britain a prerogative of the Crown, exercised on the advice of a responsible ministry. Before the full development of the present system of parliamentary government, the liability to impeachment of those associated with the King in the negotiations served as the principal check. At present, while the means of redress are no greater, the fact that the ministry, through which the treaty must be concluded, possesses the confidence of the Commons, renders the exercise of the power more secure. "The prerogative of the Crown in this respect is exercised, subject always to the collective responsibility of the Cabinet, through one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, to whom is entrusted the business of communicating with the representatives of foreign states in this country, and with our own representatives in other communities."2 I The House of Commons brought charges of inpeachment in April, 1701, against the Earls of Portland and Orford, and Lords Somers and Halifax, for their part in negotiating and advising the conclusion of the Treaty of Partition (1698). State Trials, XIV, 332, 338. The eleventh article of the impeachment of Lord Clarendon charged him with having advised and effected the sale of Dunkirk to the French King. State Trials, VI, 396; Hallam, Constitutional History of England (2 ed.), II, 498. So also a principal charge in the impeachment of Lord Danby was his agency in the conclusion of the secret treaty of May 27, 1678, between Charles II and Louis of France, by which the former agreed, for a pecuniary compensation, to remain neutral in the contest with the Dutch. State Trials, X1, 599; Hallam, II, 553. “A Whig House now (1715) directed the impeachment of Oxford, Bolingbroke and Ormond, for high treason, and other crimes and misdemeanors mainly relating to the Peace of Utrecht. *** The proceedings against Oxford and Bolingbroke are the last instance in our history of a political impeachment. * A refinement in men's sense of equity gradually disclosed the hardship of punishing ministers for acts that Parliament and the sovereign had approved; and second, the remarkable growth of the Cabinet system * * tended slowly but decisively to substitute the joint responsibility of the whole body of ministers for the personal responsibility of an individual minister." Morley's Walpole, 43-44. 2 Anson, Law and Custom of the Constitution, (3 ed.) pt. II, 97. "For the purpose of making a treaty, the first stage in the proceedings is the grant Treaties involving a charge on the people, or a change in the law of the land, can be carried into effect only by an act of Parliament.3 §116. Treaties Involving the Finances.-In treaties for the guarantee of loans, and thus potentially involving the finances, it is the practice for the Crown to engage only to recommend to Parliament, or to ask Parliament for authority to guarantee, the payment of the loan. Thus in the convention concluded March 29, 1898, to facilitate a Greek loan, it was stipulated that the Governments of France, Great Britain and Russia undertook to "guarantee jointly and severally, or to apply to their parliaments for authority to guarantee" the payments on the loan. Such authority was on due application given by the British Parliament in an act of April 1, 1898, prior to the deposit of the ratification at Paris on May 18. The act not only provided in detail for the eventual execution of the convention, but authorized Her Majesty to join in the guarantee in accordance with the terms of the convention. Similar provisions are found in the conventions concluded: November 16, 1831, May 7, 1832, June 27, 1855, June 3, 1856, and March 18, 1885, relative to the Russian-Dutch, Greek, Turkish, Sardinian and Egyptian loans, respectively." $117. Commercial Treaties.-The treaty of commerce concluded with France, at Utrecht in 1713, provided that there should be, as between the two countries, most-favored-nation treatment; of powers to representatives of the Crown to negotiate and conclude the treaty. For this purpose an instrument is prepared containing full powers to the minister representing the Crown to negotiate or conclude a treaty, or convention, with the minister who is invested with similar powers to act for the state, which is the other party to the transaction. To this instrument the great seal is affixed on the authority of a sign manual warrant countersigned by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. * * And so a warrant is again issued under the sign manual countersigned by the Secretary of State, for affixing the great seal to an instrument ratifying the treaty. The instrument of ratification, which is in fact the treaty with the great seal affixed to it, is then exchanged by the minister empowered to do so, for a ratification with corresponding forms from the other side." Id., II, pt. I, 53, 54. For the organization of the Foreign Office, see Foreign Office List, 1914, 1. 3 Anson, II, pt. I, 54; pt. II, 103. 4 Art. IX. British and Foreign State Papers, XC, 28. 5 61 Vict. c. 4. 6 Arts. I, XII, I, VII, and I, respectively. British and Foreign State Papers, XVIII, 928; XIX, 37; XLV, 18; XLVI, 238; LXXVI, 349; LVIII, 9. that all laws of Great Britain passed since 1664 for prohibiting the importation of any goods coming from France should be repealed; and that within two months thereafter a law should be passed to provide that no higher duties should be paid on goods imported from France than on those brought from any other country. A bill to make effectual these articles, introduced in the Commons in June, 1713, was after an extended debate rejected.R In the important commercial treaty with France concluded January 23, 1860, which stipulated for special reductions in duties, it was expressly provided that the treaty should not be valid unless Her Britannic Majesty should be authorized by the assent of Parliament to carry out the engagements. In stipulations of this character, which involve a modification of the existing revenue laws, it is customary for the Crown merely to engage to recommend to Parliament that the reductions be made. Thus by the protocol attached to the commercial treaty with Austria concluded December 16, 1865, Her Majesty's Government engaged to recommend to Parliament the abolition or reduction of duties payable on certain imports.10 By the commercial convention with Spain concluded April 26, 1886, the British Crown agreed to apply to Parliament for authority to make certain alterations in the scale of duties then imposed on imported Spanish wines. The convention, which otherwise only granted most-favored-nation treatment, was "drawn up subject to the sanction of the legislatures" of the two countries." In a commercial agreement of three articles with Greece concluded March 28, 1890, Her Majesty's Government engaged to recommend to Parliament a reduction of 5s. per cwt. in the duty on imported currants.12 By Article VI of the treaty of commerce and navigation with Portugal concluded August 12, 1914, the Crown engaged to recommend to Parliament the prohibition of the importation into, and sale for consumption within, the United Kingdom of any wine or other 7 Arts. VIII and IX. Collection of Treatys (2 ed., 1732), III, 446. 8 Parliamentary History, VI, 1223. 9 Art. XX. Brit. and For. State Papers, L, 26. See act of August 28, 1860, 23 & 24 Vict. c. 110. 10 Art. IV. Brit. and For. State Papers, LV, 5, 15. II Arts. II and III. Id., LXXVII, 49. See also declaration concluded with Spain December 1, 1883; also treaty with Portugal of December 26, 1878, with reference to Indian possessions. 12 Art. I. Id., LXXXII, 11. See 53 & 54 Vict. c. 8 sec. 3. |