deserting seamen to any foreign country that guarantees similar facilities for the recovery of deserters from British merchant vessels. By order in council of February 3, 1898, these provisions were made applicable to Japan.'

Section 103 of the general patent and trade-marks act of 1883, as amended by the act of 1885, gives similar power to the Crown as to patent and trade-mark agreements. By orders in council of October 15, 1894, November 20, 1894, and October 7, 1899, privileges under these acts were extended to Greece, Denmark and Japan respectively. In the preamble of the international copyright act of 1886 is the following recital with respect to the draft of a convention agreed to at the Berne conference of 1885, "And whereas, without the authority of Parliament, such convention cannot be carried into effect in Her Majesty's dominions and consequently Her Majesty cannot become a party thereto, and it is expedient to enable Her Majesty to accede to the convention: Be it therefore enacted ***"3 If the stipulations of a copyright convention do not transcend the provisions of the general international copyright acts they may be made effective by an order in council. An order of April 30, 1894, gave effect to the special convention with Austria-Hungary of April 24, 1893. The act of August 2, 1883, to carry into effect the North Sea fisheries convention, signed May 6, 1882, and to amend the laws relating to

'Brit. and For. State Papers, vol. lxxxvi, p. 724; vol. xc, p. 201. See similar provision in foreign deserters act of 1852, ibid., vol. xli, p. 680.

'46&47 Vict. c. 57. Brit. and For. State Papers, vol. lxxxvi, pp. 118, 122; vol. xci, p. 1130.

49 & 50 Vict. c. 33.

7 & 8 Vict. c. 12; 15 & 16 Vict. c. 12; 38 & 39 Vict. c. 12. Brit. and For. State Papers, vol. lxxxvi, p. 97.

British sea fisheries, authorized Her Majesty to apply the act in whole or in part to conventions that might be made with foreign powers respecting sea fisheries.' The postal-union convention signed at Berne, October 9, 1874, was carried into effect by the act of June 14, 1875By section 2 of this act the Treasury is authorized to make such regulations as may seem necessary for carrying into effect arrangements made by Her Majesty with any foreign country with respect to the conveyance by post of any postal packet between the United Kingdom and places outside; and by section 14 of the act of August 18, 1882, to modify or except, on the recommendation of the Commissioners of Customs and the Postmaster-General, for the purpose of carrying into effect any treaty or agreement with a foreign state, the application of any of the customs enactments to foreign parcels.2

By a treaty with Belgium of February 17, 1876, packetboats employed in the conveyance of postal matter between certain ports were to be considered as having the immunities and privileges of ships of war.3 A collision occurred between a ship owned by British subjects and a packetboat, the "Parlement Belge," running in accordance with the treaty between Dover and Ostend, a ship moreover the property of the King of the Belgians and carrying the royal pennon. Acts of Parliament conferred a statutory right on owners of vessels damaged at sea by collision to obtain in the Admiralty Court redress by proceedings in Such proceedings having been instituted against the "Parlement Belge," the case came before Sir Robert

rem.

146 & 47 Vict. c. 22, sec. 23.

2 38 & 39 Vict. c. 22; 45 & 46 Vict. c. 74.

43 & 4 Vict. c. 65, sec. 6; 24 Vict. c. 10, sec. 7.

$ Art. VI.

Phillimore in the Admiralty division in March, 1879. It was admitted that the convention had never been confirmed by statute. On the part of the Crown it was contended, "both that it was competent to Her Majesty to make this convention, and also to put its provisions into operation without the confirmation of them by Parliament.' The plaintiffs admitted the former proposition but denied the latter. The only question before the court, was, as Sir Robert Phillimore held, did the treaty of itself exempt the vessel from the proceedings? i. e., could a right of a British subject recognized by Parliament be ceded or extinguished by the Crown without the sanction of the legislature? Upon this he decided in the negative, observing: “If the Crown had power without the authority of Parliament by this treaty to order that the "Parlement Belge" should be entitled to all the privileges of a ship of war, then the warrant, which is prayed for against her as a wrongdoer on account of the collision, cannot issue, and the right of the subject, but for this order unquestionable, to recover damages for the injuries done to him by her is extinguished. This is a use of the treatymaking prerogative of the Crown which I believe to be without precedent and in principle contrary to the laws of the constitution." On appeal the decision was reversed, but on the ground that the "Parlement Belge" as a public ship, belonging to the King of the Belgians, was according to international law (which was thus recognized as a part of the law of the land) exempt from proceedings in rem independently of the immunities that might arise under the treaty. The principle on which the decision of the lower court was based has been main

The Parlement Belge, 4 Law Reports, Probate Division, 149, 154. '5 Law Reports, Probate Division, 197.

tained in debates and in diplomatic correspondence. Mr. Gladstone, in opposing the course of Conservatives in 1890, in requiring the assent of Parliament to the cession of the island of Heligoland, observed, “I believe it to be also a principle-and I speak subject to correctionthat where personal rights and liberties are involved they cannot be, at any rate, directly affected by the prerogative of the Crown, but the assent of Parliament, the popular, elected body to a representative chamber is necessary to constitute a valid treaty in regard to them." The same principle was involved in the declaration made by the Marquis of Salisbury in the Bering Sea correspondence with the United States in 1890, that the British government could not, without legislative sanction, exclude for an hour British or Canadian vessels from any portion of the high seas.'

On the principle that the Crown cannot annul a law by treaty or destroy legal rights of British subjects, the question has often been raised by British statesmen, whether territory for which special laws have been passed by Parliament, or territory acquired by settlement, to which according to English jurisprudence a British subject is considered to have carried in some degree the rights and privileges of British subjects and the laws of his country, can be ceded by the Crown without the sanction of Parliament. Territory acquired by conquest falls immediately under the legislative power of the Crown in Council, while that acquired by settlement does not so fall unless by virtue of an act of Parliament.3

'Hansard's Debates, vol. cccxlvii, p. 761.

'For. Rel. of the U. S. 1890, p. 433.

3

› Anson, Law and Custom of the Constitution, vol. ii, p. 258. The British settlement act of 1887 places under the legislative power of the Crown in Council all possessions acquired by settlement, in contradis

The right of the Crown to establish by treaty a boundary, whatever may have been the manner in which the territory affected was acquired or has been governed, seems to be well established and supported by precedents. While a treaty simply to determine a boundary line operates as an acknowledgment of title rather than as a treaty of cession,' precedents may be found in which territory has by express stipulation been exchanged.'

The question of the power of the Crown to cede territory was considered in concluding the first peace with the United States. Special acts had been passed, applying to the American colonies. Among these were the act of 16 George III, c. 5, which prohibited trade, and the act of 17 George III, c. 7, which authorized hostilities. In arranging for the treaty, it seemed to some to be necessary, in order to annul these and other laws applying to the colonies, that Parliament should give its assent to the conclusion of a treaty. Accordingly, an act was passed authorizing the king to conclude a treaty and annul and make void any inconsistent act.3 Uncertainty as to the necessity of this measure was expressed in the debates. Earl Shelburne on December 13, 1782, in reply to a question respecting the provisional treaty said: "That agreement had been made in consequence of an

tinction to those acquired by conquest and cession, not for the time being within the jurisdiction of the legislature of any British possession. 50 & 51 Vict. c. 54, sec. 6.

'Hall, International Law (4th ed.), p. 102.

'A notable case is the exchange of territory on the Gold Coast expressly stipulated for in Art. I of the treaty with the Netherlands of March 5, 1867. The act of Parliament of April 11, 1843, placing British settlements on or adjacent to the coast of Africa, under the legislative power of the Crown in Council was, it would seem, applicable to this territory. 6 & 7 Vict. c. 13.

22 George III, c. 46.