The Sun.
London, England, 1853-04-05 00:00:00

)
1
-1-e---(_'
, . . _ _ . . . _ , , .
~_
F::'.._:,
v...,.
:,,,,
~ _
...
~..:fet....
.....- _ .
• • _ V.,„.,..,...-„,:f- x,„ :.. - . ... . ~,,
....,,,..,,f •,, 1,-,,,,-.-wi
C;271::: „.",:,,..* ~...,- .
, ...
7 .
, ..„
I. e-
i-- ' \:"' ..- - , ,c--v-„,k, irk
.. , _ . ,-- - -•:. e ,
4.. ,
\el, •,>.
..i..i.,
._,-, 0.',,,P—..,...',.1,..:-. \ . .' . - •, _
..__
~ , L. ..
.. , ..
~., ,5., ,
',.- / -,-
...,
..t-1:..1-7—.1.".v;*,,;-:'ii'4.:1-tt-‘-..:,.1'::..4-',..1.-ii,_,;------.1:4-1.,0-4:,,,..--:Tr4i-,,,--7:0:'11.:‘,..,::i!-7.7:itoi T ' 7 : ;:it---7...‘.
11.
',..._______,7-- 'li .. '•• -, . >;- 4
N` - •

'RICE SD.

IMPERIAL PAR L lAME NT.

HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.)
THE CITY ADDRESS TO THE EMPEROR
NAPOLEON.
Lord CAMPBELL then rose to put a question to the
httnwooaoi bati esher
recently
subject
ecdnictatthe
had
i yroaftbgi Secretary
neceonr:
tphtr aari
dnenr y of d
address
presented
national
nits St
it
:It State
inif
idoti irhsl
evFl
importance.oi
necrl‘hevpi
newspapers
Affairs,l
ajaaleed rr:safsairjtaueeanst
eetcoyi
l
Napoleon 111., ‘• in the name of the English nation."
Now, in putting his question, he had no intention to
throw. blame on the individuals who had presented this
address. He had the pleasure of knowing some of them,
and he believed them all to be highly respectable, and
actuated, no doubt, by patriotic and disinterested mo-
tives. But if, in presenting the address to which he re-
ferred, they had acted without the authority of the Home
Government, he apprehended they had been guilty of an
offence against the law of the land—at all events of an
offence against the law of nations. It is an established
rule, he believed, that the intercourse which took place
between independent nations could only be transacted
through the medium of ambassadors or ministers sent
from the respective courts of those nations—such a rule
having been established in order to the preservation of
international tranquillity. The rule would be found laid
down by all writers on this important subject, but he
would only trouble their lordships with an extract from
Vattel, who was supported by Puffendorff and all his
illustrious predecessors. Vattel remarked
Nations are to treat and hold intercourse with one an-
other, and, bound by reciprocal obligation, to consent to
such communication. But nations and sovereigns do not
treat together immediately. The only expedient for nations
and sovereigns is to communicate and treat with each other
by the agency of nrociirators or m.and.atories, of delegates
charged with their commands, and vested with their powers
—that is to say, public ministers. The minister is, in some
soil, a representative of a foreign power, a person charged
with the commands of that power, and delegated to manage
its affairs."
Without quoting the opinions of other jurists on the
subject, he would simply refer to what took place in
1791, when it was stated that a deputation was sent
from this country to the Empress of Russia. At that
period one party in this country thought we were ag-
grieved by the proceedings of the Russian Government,
while another were of opinion that the English Govern.
ment were to blame. The party in favour of Russia sent
a deputation to St. Petersburgh in the person of Mr.
Adair. Upon this proceeding Mr. Burke passed the
following severe comment :
" This proceeding of Mr. Fox does not (as I conceive)
amount to absolute high treason ; Russia, though on bad
terms, not having been then declaredly at war with this
kingdom. But such a proceeding is, in law, not very re-
mote from that offence, and is undoubtedly a most uncon-
stitutional act, and a high treasonable misdemeanour. The
legitimate and sure mode of communication between this
nation and foreign powers is rendered uncertain, precari-
ous, and treacherous, by being divided into two channels,
by which means the foreign powers can never be assured of
the real authority or validity of any public transaction.
This proceeding has given a strong countenance, and an en-
couraging example to the doctrines and practices of the
Revolution and Constitutional Societies, and of other mis-
chievous societies of that description, who, without any
legal authority, are in the habit of proposing, and to tire
best of their power of forming, leagues and alliances with
France."
Now he (Lord Campbell) apprehended that the principles
thus laid down by Burke were inconsistent with the
transaction now under discussion. He apprehended
that unless this deputation to the Emperor of France
were authorised by the British Government to proceed
in that capacity, they had acted in violation of the law
although unconsciously so, As to the declaration itself,
it was perfectly harmless. In many of the sentiments
contained hi' it he concurred. But inasmuch as such
declaration was not the result of any public meeting of
her Majesty's subjects, or in conformity with any ad-
dress agreed to at a public meeting, he could not recog-
nise its legality. The document in question contained
nothing more than a simple declaration of a desire that
the relations of amity and peace between the two na-
tions should be kept up. In his opinion at no former
period had there been a greater desire on the part of all
classes in this country to maintain those relations of
peace and amity with France. (' Hear, hear," from the
Earl of Malmesbury.) Such was not the case in 1791,
when the then Government took up one line of policy
and the opposition another. (Hear, hear.) To revert,
however, to the declaration under discussion, he be-
lieved it to be a clear violation!of the law. This country
knew nothing of -the document until the curtain was
withdrawn, and Napoleon the Third was discovered,
surrounded by his ministers, and approached by the
English deputation. He (Lord Campbell) . did not
know whether the English ambassador was pre-
sent on the occasion, or whether his sanction was
asked to the transaction. Was he (Lord Campbell)
to suppose that Sir James Duke was sent over to super-
sede Lord Cowley, and that he went over to France
invested with the authority of an ambassador extraordi-
nary or a minister plenipotentiary ? The form of lan-
guage employed by Sir James Duke to the Emperor
would have been all very well had the subject in hand
been the cession of a railway or a canal ; but such lan-
guage on a subject relating to our internal relations
ought only to have proceeded from the lips of an accre-
dited minister of the Crown. Sir James Duke said :

" Sire,—We have the honour to appear before your Ma-
jesty fog the purpose of presenting to your Majesty and to
the French nation a declaration from the commercial com-
munity of the metropolis of the British empire.
" We have only to add the expression of our conviction
that this document conveys at the same time a faithful re-
presentation of . the feelings of the people of England at
large."
They express a fervent--

"-Hope that under your reign France and England may
bo always united," &c.
Of this declaration the Emperor, in his reply said :
" It confirms in me the confidence with which the good
sense of the English has always inspired me."
He then expresses some alarm as to what was done last
year, adding : _

" But the good sense of a great people cannot bo long
deceived, and the step which you now take is a striking
proof of this.