Treaties that involve 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. In treaties for the guarantee of loans, and thus potentially involving the finances, it is the practice to engage only to recommend to Parliament the guarantee, or to ask Parliament for authority to guarantee. Thus in the convention with France, Greece and Russia of March 29, 1898, to facilitate a Greek loan, it was stipulated that "The Governments of France, Great Britain and Russia undertake to guarantee jointly and severally, or to apply to their parliaments for authority to guarantee." Such authority was on due application given by the British Parliament by 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 enacted that Her Majesty might guarantee as stipulated in the treaty.3 Similar provisions are found in the conventions signed: May 7, 1832, June 27, 1855, June 3, 1856, and March 18, 1885, relative to Greek, Turkish, Sardinian and Egyptian loans, respectively; and April 30, 1868, to facilitate a loan for the completion of the improvements on the Danube.

nities." Anson, Law and Custom of the Constitution, vol. ii, p. 273. Of the organization of the Foreign Office, the same author says: "The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is assisted by two Under Secretaries of State, one of whom is political, the other permanent; two assistant Under Secretaries, a Librarian, a head of the Treaty Department and a staff of clerks."

'Ibid., vol. ii, p. 279.

'Article IX. British and Foreign State Papers, vol. xc, p. 28.

61 Vict., c. 4.

*Articles XII, I, VII and I, respectively. British and Foreign State Papers, vol. xix, p. 37; vol. xlv, p. 18; vol. xlvi, p. 238; vol. lxxvi, p. 349; vol. lviii, p. 9.

As to commercial treaties that require a change in the law of the land, Parliament manifested a tendency to assert an independent agency in their execution as early as 1713. The commercial treaty of Utrecht with France provided that, as between the two countries, the mostfavored-nation treatment should be observed; that all laws made in Great Britain since 1664 for prohibiting the importation of any goods coming from France should be repealed; and that within two months a law should be passed providing that no higher customs duties should be paid on goods imported from France than on those brought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 into the Commons in June, 1713, was after an extended debate voted down." Article XX of the important commercial treaty with France of January 23, 1860, provided that the treaty should not be valid unless Her Britannic Majesty should be authorized by the assent of Parliament to execute its engagements. Such a provision is usually inserted in treaties which stipulate for an immediate modification of the existing revenue laws. By Article II of a commercial convention with Spain, signed April 26, 1886, the British Government agreed to apply to Parliament for authority to make certain alterations in the scale of duties imposed on imported Spanish wines. The convention, which otherwise only guaranteed 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, signed March

1Articles VIII and IX. Collection of Treatys, vol. iii, p. 446. 'Parliamentary History, vol. vi, p. 1223.

'Brit. and For. State Papers, vol. 1, p. 26.

'Art. III. Ibid., vol. lxxvii, p. 49.

28, 1890, Her Britannic Majesty engaged to recommend to Parliament a reduction of 5s. per cwt. in the duty on imported currants. In the important general treaties of commerce and navigation, which stipulate on the part of Great Britain for most-favored-nation treatment rather than for special tariff concessions, concluded December 5, 1876, with Austria-Hungary, July 23, 1862, with Belgium, May 30, 1865, with Germany, June 15, 1883, with Italy, July 16, 1894, with Japan, and January 12, 1859, with Russia, no such reservations are found. With respect to the convention signed at Brussels March 5, 1902, for the abolition of bounties and the limitation of the surtax on sugar, the House of Commons, by a resolution adopted November 24, 1902, approved the policy embodied in the convention, and declared that in the event of its receiving the ratification required to make it binding, the House was prepared to adopt the necessary measures to enable His Majesty to carry out its provisions. The House thus pledged itself to execute the convention.

Blackstone wrote more than a century and a quarter ago, "Natural allegiance is therefore a debt of gratitude which cannot be forfeited, cancelled or altered by any chance of time, place or circumstances, nor by anything but the united concurrence of the legislature."3 In the negotiations leading up to the naturalization treaty of May 13, 1870, with the United States, recognizing the right of expatriation, the British government maintained that legislation by Parliament should precede the signing of the treaty, or else its validity should be made depend

'Art. I. Ibid., vol. lxxxii, p. II. See 53 & 54 Vict., c.

2

8, sec. 3.

* Parliamentary Debates (4th series), vol. cxv, pp. 271, 371. 3 Commentaries, vol. i, p. 369.

ent upon such legislation. No act for this purpose having passed Parliament, when the protocol of October 9, 1868, embodying the substance of what was afterwards. incorporated in the treaty, was signed by Mr. Johnson and Lord Stanley, it was expressly stipulated that, since it would not be practicable for Great Britain to carry into operation the principles laid down in the protocol until provision had been made by Parliament for a revision of the laws, the protocol should not take effect until such legislation had been accomplished. The treaty as signed May 13, 1870, contains no such reservation, since an act of Parliament of May 12 recognized the principles of the treaty and enacted them into law. A supplemental convention was signed February 23, 1871, and, to remove all doubts as to whether the act of 1870 provided for the full execution of it, the additional act of July 25, 1872, was passed.3

In matters usually subject to uniform international regulation, provision is often made by a general law for the execution of agreements concluded in conformity. thereto. The extradition act of 1870, as supplemented by the acts of 1873 and 1895, provides (sec. 2) that "Where an arrangement has been made with any foreign state with respect to the surrender to such state of any fugitive criminals, Her Majesty may, by order in council, direct that the said act shall apply in the case of such foreign state." Under these acts Her Majesty, by orders in council of February 22, 1896, November 27, 1896, August 9, 1898, and October 20, 1898, made ef

'Brit. and For. State Papers, vol. lix, pp. 29, 30, 32.

'Ibid., vol. lx, p. 267.

'Ibid., vol. lxii, p. 1208. See act of 1895, ibid., vol. lxxxvii, p. 944. Ibid., vol. lx, p. 145; vol. lxiii, p. 391; vol. lxxxvii, p. 957.

fective respectively the treaties of extradition of February 13, 1896, with France, August 27, 1896, with Belgium, January 26, 1897, with Chile, and February 22, 1892, with Bolivia. Prior to the passage of the act of 1870, special statutes were required to make such treaties effective. Article X of the treaty of August 9, 1842, with the United States, which related to extradition, was not effective as a law of the land until the passage, August 22, 1843, of an act for that purpose. Another act of the same date, for the execution of the treaty of extradition with France of February 13, 1843, failed to give full effect to the treaty. During the period between 1843 and 1852, out of fourteen fugitives claimed by France only one was secured under the treaty.3 In each of the extradition treaties signed May 28, 1852, with France, April 15, 1862, with Denmark, and March 5, 1864, with Prussia, an article was inserted in which the operation of the treaty was expressly made dependent upon the passage by Parliament of the necessary laws for its execution. In the first of these treaties the Crown engaged only to recommend to Parliament the passage of an appropriate act; and, Parliament having refused to provide the requisite legislation, the treaty remained inoperative, although the exchange of ratifications had taken place." Section 238 of the general merchant shipping act of August 25, 1894, authorizes the Crown to apply by order in council the provisions of the act for surrendering 'Brit. and For. State Papers, vol. lxxxviii, pp. 179, 180; vol. xc, pp.

231, 235.

26 & 7 Vict. c. 76.

36 & 7 Vict. c. 75. Clarke, Extradition (3rd ed.), p. 131.

*Art. XV, Art. IV and Art. III respectively. Brit. and For. State Papers, vol. xli, p. 20; vol. lii, p. 30; vol. liv, p. 20.

'Hansard's Debates, vol. cxxi, p. 1370; vol. cxxii, pp. 192, 561, 1278.