197 



* The lord chancellor (Eldon) said that if by the omission of the 

 mention of former treaties they were all to be considered as ab- 

 &quot; rogated, and if the public law of Europe was thus altered, he 

 &quot; had no difficulty in saying that an address should be voted to his 

 &quot;majesty praying that he would dismiss his present ministers from 

 &quot; his councils forever. But he trusted that the fact was far other- 

 &quot; wise, and that the conduct of ministers deserved no such cen- 

 &quot; sure.&quot; 



And afterwards with regard to the right of cutting logwood in 

 the Bay of Honduras : 



&quot; Let it be held in mind, that Honduras became the rightful pro- 

 &quot; perty of Great Britain by conquest, and was never ceded to 

 * Spain, without an acknowledgment , on the part of the court of 

 &quot; Madrid, of our undoubted right to cut logwood. In proportion. 

 &quot; as the right of conquest was paramount to the effect of treaties, 

 &quot; in which that right was not specifically abandoned and resigned, 

 ts our right to cut logwood in the Bay of Honduras remained more 

 &quot; secure and free from challenge than it could have done if it had 

 &quot; been mentioned in the definitive treaty.&quot; 



And in the debate in the House of Commons, speaking of this 

 same right of cutting logwood in the Bay of Honduras, lord Hawkes- 

 bury (the present earl of Liverpool) said, 



&quot; The fact is, that right was ceded to us by the Spaniards in 

 &quot; 1787, in return for some lands that we gave them on the Mus- 

 &quot; quito Shore ; therefore it is a settlement which we possess of 

 &quot; right, and to which the Spaniards were as much bound to refer 

 &quot; in the treaty as we were ; it was, in truth, on our part no ornis- 

 &quot; sion.&quot; Hansard s Parliamentary History, vol. 36, A. D. 1802. 



The doctrine of the non-abrogation even of commercial treaties, by 

 war, has been maintained by British statesmen and lawyers on 

 many occasions. They have sometimes carried it further than 

 those of other nations have been ready to admit. Thus in the de 

 bate of the House of Commons on the definitive treaty of peace of 

 1783, between France, Spain, and Great Britain, Mr. Fox, al 

 luding to the renewal in that treaty of the treaty of Utrecht ; and 

 to the period of two years from the 1st of January, 1784, fixed for 

 the negotiation of a treaty of commerce, said : &quot; Pending the nego- 

 &quot; tiation, it was reasonable to suppose the three nations would, in 

 &quot;commercial transactions, be bound by the treaty of Utrecht : and 

 &quot; this he imagined was the sense of the British ministers. But sup 

 posing the two years should expire before the new commercial 

 &quot; arrangements should take place, a question would naturally arise, 

 &quot; what would, in this case, become of the treaty of Utrecht ? For 

 &quot; his part, he was of opinion that the treaty of Utrecht would, in such 

 &quot; a case, still remain in full force ; but he knew, on the other hand, 

 &quot; that this had not been the opinion of the courts of Madrid and 

 &quot; Versailles, the ministers of which contended, that if the negotia- 

 &quot; tions should end without producing any new commercial arrange- 



