in them. On the contrary, many of them have passages to a contrary effect. For instance, Sir John Fortescue, who was Chancellor under Henry VI., in his 'De Laudibus Legum Angliæ,' a work addressed to the Prince of Wales, says of the king, that "he is appointed to protect his subjects, in their lives, properties, and laws; and for this very end and purpose, he has delegation of power from the people; and he has no claim to any other power than this." And Blackstone, who wrote three centuries later, revives the theory of a delegated authority, as applied to matters of state policy. He says that, "with regard to foreign concerns, the king is the delegate, or representative of his people." And, after quoting Grotius, he goes on to show that a Declaration of War, coming from the Sovereign power, is "not so much that the enemy may be put upon his guard, but that it may be certainly clear that the war is not undertaken by private parties, but by the will of the whole community." The very idea of a "delegate" acting "by the will" of others, implies the necessity for a recognized method by which the will of the principals may be declared and communicated to the former; and that method in constitutional states is through the duly-elected representatives of the people. Coke, speaking of the functions of Parliament, and quoting the words of the writ to the effect that they are "touching the king, the state of the Kingdom of England, and the defence of the kingdom, etc.," remarks that these words, "the state and defence of the kingdom' are large words, and include the rest.”

ΙΟ

Errors of Modern Diplomacy.

A careful examination of the rolls of Parliament, from the time of the Conquest down to the accession of the Stuarts, will show that during the whole of that long space of five centuries and more, the constant practice was to consult with, and take the authority of Parliament upon all questions of peace and war, and other matters of international policy. We will cite a few facts in confirmation of our position, selected from a mass of cases which would fill volumes.

To begin—we find that William the Conqueror, when meditating the invasion of England, "consulted his barons and great men of Normandy, and with their advice undertook the expedition." The peace which William Rufus made with his brother Robert was sworn by twelve barons of each nation," and the same ceremony was gone through in regard to the peace between Henry I. and the same Robert. Under Stephen a similar case might be cited. Henry II., to whose arbitration some differences between the Kings of Castile and Navarre were referred, "did not think fit to make any determination upon this point but in his High Court of Parliament, when he ordered the ambassadors to deliver what they had to say," after which, "the earls and barons of the Royal Court of England adjudged plenary satisfaction to be made, etc."

On the other hand, Henry III. called several Parliaments together for the purpose of getting supplies, with which to make war with France, but he repeatedly met with refusals couched in no very

courteous terms. On one occasion, when he had engaged in war of his own authority, and afterwards applied to Parliament for aid, the barons told him that "he had undertaken it unadvisedly; and that his Parliament wondered he could undertake so difficult and dangerous a business without their advice and assent."

وو

The Edwards did not fall under the ridicule which their tyrannical predecessor had justly brought upon himself. They habitually referred to Parliament on all matters of state policy. Edward I. obtained the assent of Parliament before making war upon Llewellyn, Prince of Wales, and after slaying the latter and his brother David, again had recourse to a Parliament at Rutland (May 22, 1282); " and it was there resolved that Wales should be inseparably united to the Crown of England." In the 28th year of the reign of this prince a Parliament was assembled in London, in which a very important matter of state policy was transacted. "The first thing that was done at their meeting," we are told, was to read before them the Pope's instrument of award between the two kings of France and England, who had agreed to make him as a private person only, under the name of Benedict Cajetan, the amicable composer and arbiter of all wars, controversies, differences, and causes whatever between them." This award is there given at length," to which, when it was read in Parliament, all the clergy and laity gave their consent."

66

Edward III., in the course of his long reign, called together no less than sixteen parliaments, to

12

Errors of Modern Diplomacy.

advise with them on matters of war, peace, and alliances. In the fifth year of his reign he called a Parliament "to consult upon the whole state of his differences with the King of France, asking their advice whether he should refer them to arbitration, or treat amicably with him, or proceed to open war." The prelates, earls, barons, and other great men, "thereupon advised in favour of a treaty; and the king, in Parliament, and with its consent, named the Commissioners for negociating the same," and "part of their powers and business was there prescribed to them." To show that these submissions to parliamentary authority were not mere matters of form, we have a case in the thirty-sixth year of the same reign, when an offer of peace from Robert Bruce of Scotland, being referred to a Parliament, the latter unanimously resolved "that they could not assent to it, as prejudicial to the king's

crown."

In the seventh year of the reign of Richard II. we meet with rather a curious case, in which the reason is stated why the people should be consulted, not only before making war, but before closing war by a treaty of peace. A treaty with France was in negociation, but the Chancellor, Michael de la Pole, told both Houses "that the king, out of tender love to his people, and in consideration of the great expenses they had been at during the war, would not finally conclude the peace without their assent and knowledge, though he might do it because (as it was conceived) France was the king's own proper inheritance, and not belonging to the Crown of

England." And then he declared that "the king desired and earnestly charged them carefully to examine and consider the said articles in relation to this treaty, and advise what was best to be done for the kingdom's honour and advantage.”

Henry IV. in the very first year of his reign, and repeatedly afterwards, summoned Parliament "to have their advice" about expeditions he had in contemplation, and as to treaties about to be made. In the reign of Henry V. we read of an alliance with Sigismund, King of the Romans, which " was confirmed, approved of, and ratified by Parliament " in these words :-"Be it known, etc., Our most sovereign lord aforesaid, willing that the said alliance may be perpetual, and the matters contained in the said letters patent having been duly and solemnly debated in this Parliament, etc., by their common assent and consent in the said Parliament, and by authority of the same, they did ratify, approve, and confirm, etc." Henry V. consulted his Parliament as to his claims to France, and in his reign a treaty of peace with that country was laid before Parliament, and "ratified and confirmed by the Lords and Commons." Under Henry VI. in several Parliaments the advice of the Lords and Commons was sought for in matters of peace and war. In the ninth year of that reign was passed an Act of Parliament authorizing negociations for peace with France, Spain, and Scotland in these words:"That it is ordained and advised by the Lords spiritual and temporal, and Commons, being in this Parliament that [certain parties named] may