Year: 1871

The letter of our London correspondent on
the Treaty and its reception in England, "a
not, we grieve to say, approved by The U0rid.
That paper devotes half a column to proving,
with the help of a good deal Of personal abuse,
that the Treaty needs no ratification in En-
gland We shall not venture to dissent from
a journal that has shown itself so careful and
accurate in its knowledge Of foreign affairs.
But what exci,es our surprise Is that Lord
Russell. who las been a Cabinet Minister half
his lifc should make precisely the same
blunder as our London correspondent. Lord
Russell has given notice Of motion IN the
House of Lords for an address to the Crown
against the ratification OF the Treaty. If The
Treaty requires no ratification, what Is the
meaning of Lord Russelrs motion


There is no mystery about the matter. The
Treaty negotiated by the High Joint Comms-
sion is not Treaty and not binding upon
England till it has received the assent of tie
Grown. That assent will be given or with
held in accordance with the advice Of Her
Maesty's Minister'S and the advice, or, to
speak practically, the decision of the Ministers
Will be governed by the will Of the House OF
Commons. 1t is undoubtedly true, as our cor
respondent stated, that consultations were held
between the English Commissioners and Min
isters at home during the negotiations, and
that what was agreed to by the Commission
had the sanction of the Cabinet. But there Is
n wide difference between this informal sane
ton and the solemn act Of ratification
which is yet to be performed. Before that
act is completed the Treaty will be
laid before Parliament Mr. Dsrael asked
for it on the afternoon OF Monday,
Nav -. about o'clock. Mr.. Gladstone
answered that a copy of the Treaty had not
vet been received in London, but that he
expected it in few days, and that it should
be laid on the table at the earliest possible
moment. Should Earl Russelrs address be
carried in the House of Lords, counter
address will certainly be moved and carried
in the House of Commons. In any case, the
formal assent of the Crown will not be given
until Parliament has had an opportunity to
consider and debate the Treaty. Ministry
which should venture to anticipate or resist
the decision of the House would be turned
out of Office the next day. All this Is SO
familiar to any one cOnversant with Enghsh
politics that the ignorance OF Iie World has
tbe air of being assumed for the sake OF
indulging i'll sneer.


Our correspondent remarked that, as to the
future effect of the new rules of international
law. it is too soon to expect an opinlon, add-
ing that he knew of no importanti declaration
in England either for or against them. me
World says the rules are not new; that III
England they have been statute law Tor
wear, and in the United States for more thal
half century. The assertion is not accurate
and if it were accurate is not to the point
The difference between statute Obligation
and an international obligation was the hHge
npon which the Alabama controversy turned
Earl Russell, then Foreign Minister, insisted
and still insists that England had no other
duty than to enforce her own municipal iaw'
and that she was not responsible TO America
for the character of that law. Her Foreign
Enlistment Act was amended last year, but
the amendment might be repealed TINS
year or next, just as we may repeal or modify
IN any way our Neutrality Act. III the Treaty
is ratified, the principles enunciated in 1t VIII
then become for the first time in the history
pf ptla a. inf. a.