J96 



"is true, thai treaties in the nature ot" compacts or conceiision?, 

 *' the enjoyment of which has been interrupted by the war, and 

 " has not been renewed at the pacification, are rendered null by 

 " the war. But compacts not interrupted by the course and effect 

 " of hostilities, such as the regulated exercise of ajisherij on the re- 

 " spective coasts of the belligerent pozi^ers, the stipulated right of cut- 

 " ting wood in a p;)rticuhir district, or possessing rights of territory 

 " heretofore ceded by treaty, are certainly not destroyed or injured by 

 " vi^ar.'' 



And again : " It is not true that our non-renewal of the Dutch 

 " 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- 

 " ties were only recognitions of an existing right. And the treaty of 

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

 '* manner as the same hath been formerly observed in any time 

 " whatsoever. The same remark would be found applicable to the 

 "sixth article of the treaty of 178 I, by which the States General 

 *' promised not to obstruct the navigation of the British subjects in 

 *' the eastern seas. That article w\is no compact or grant ; it was 

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

 *' and was merel}' meant as a notice to our merchants that they 

 •"^ would not be disturbed in the exercise of that right." 



Lastly : " He had already stated the incontrovertible principle, 

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

 " ed by the course of the war, remain in full effect on the return 

 " of peace. Our privileges in the Bay of Honduras had been given 

 ■'• 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 carl of Carnarvon — a member of the opposition, said in the 

 same debate : 



*' It has been nearly admitted by ministers, that former treaties, 

 " by the omission of renewal, are abrogated : my noble relation 

 " (lord Grenville) does not go that length, but he thinks we have 

 " lost our title deeds in most cases, and has affirmed, that we have 

 ''thereby totally lost the gum trade. I am far from thinking any 

 •' of these consequences follow simply from the tacit omission of 

 " the renewals. War does not abrogate any right, or interfere 

 " with the right, thougli it does with the exercise, but such as it 

 " professes to litigate by war. All the writers on the law of nations 

 *' distinctly affirm, that peace has onl}^ relation to the war which it 

 " terminates, leaving all the former relative situations of the two 

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

 "^ expressly renewed, remain in full effect, if not expressly abro- 

 " gated in the treaty of peace, or by private consent and acknow-r 

 "ledgment." 



