J.96 



f&amp;lt; is true, that treaties in the nature of compacts or concession 1 ?, 

 &quot; the enjoyment of which has been interrupted by the war, and 

 &quot; has not been renewed at the pacification, are rendered null by 

 &quot; the war. But compacts not interrupted by the course and effect 

 &quot; of hostilities, such as the regulated exercise of a fishery on the re- 

 spective coasts of the belligerent powers, the stipulated right of cut- 

 c&amp;lt; ting wood in a particular district, or possessing rights of territorij 

 &quot; heretofore ceded by treaty, are certainly not destroyed or injured by 



And again : &quot; It is not true that our non-renewal of the Dutch 

 4t treaties will liberate the ships and vessels of that republic from 

 ** the ancient practice of striking their flag to British ships of war, 

 ^ in the British seas. That practice did not depend on the treaty 



of 1784, nor even on the treaty of Breda, in 1667. Those trea- 

 * tics were only recognitions of an existing right. And the treaty ot 

 1667 expressly stated that the Dutch flag shall be struck in such 

 l manner as the same hath been formerly observed in any time 

 &quot;whatsoever. The same remark would be found applicable to the 

 &quot;sixth article of the treaty of 1784, by which the States General 



k promised not to obstruct the navigation of the British subjects in 

 * the eastern seas. That article was no compact or grant ; it was 

 f only an acknowledgment of a pre-existing and undoubted right ; 

 &quot; and was merely meant as a notice to our merchants that they 

 &quot; would not be disturbed in the exercise of that right.&quot; 



Lastly: &quot; He had already stated the incontrovertible principle, 

 * that treaties or compacts, the exercise of which is not interrupt- 

 &quot; ed by the course of the war. remain in full effect on the return 

 &quot; of peace. Our privileges in the Buy of Honduras had been given 

 &quot; in lieu of ancient and acknowledged rights in the Bay of Cam- 

 ; peachy. Those privileges having been enjoyed without disturb- 



ance during the war, are confirmed and established. 



The earl of Carnarvon a member of the opposition, said in the 

 same debate : 



&quot; It has been nearly admitted by ministers, that former treaties, 

 &quot; by the omission of renewal, are abrogated : my noble relation 

 &quot;(lord Grenville) does not go that length, but he thinks we have 

 &quot; lost our title deeds in most cases, and has affirmed, that we have 

 &quot;thereby totally lost the gum trade. I am far from thinking any 

 &quot; of these consequences follow simply from the tacit omission of 

 &quot; the renewals. War does not abrogate any right, or interfere 

 &quot; with the right, though it does with the exercise, but such as it 

 &quot; professes to litigate by war. All the writers on the law of nations 

 &quot; distinctly affirm, that peace has only relation to the war which it 

 &quot; terminates, leaving all the former relative situations of the two 

 ** countries as before the war; and that former treaties, though not 

 &quot; expressly renewed, remain in full effect, if not expressly abro- 

 &quot; gated in the treaty of peace, or by private consent and acknow 

 ledgment.&quot; 



