« AnteriorContinuar »
Right of Search," appearing in Paris, with some pamphlets on the same subject, kindled such a flame in public opinion, that the French government dare not sign the treaty, showing an instance where international law was directly governed by popular opinion. The English government then subdivided the right. They claimed the right to “visit,” to ascertain nationality, and not to "search,” unless it be an English vessel. The whole attempt has, however, failed, like her diplomacy in Texas. By the treaty of Washington, the matter has been settled according to the views taken by Mr. Wheaton; and in 1845 England made a treaty with France, which comes to a most impotent conclusion. By this treaty the two nations are to keep equal forces on the African coast, and each squadron to take care of the vessels that hoist its nation's flag. Article 8, runs as follows:
“Whereas, experience has shown that the traffic in slaves, in those parts of the world where it is habitually carried on, is often accompanied by acts of piracy, dangerous to the tranquillity of the seas, and to the safety of all flags; and considering, at the same time, that if the flag carried by a vessel be prima facie evidence of the national character of such vessel, this presumption cannot be considered as sufficient to forbid in all cases the proceeding to the verification thereof, --since other. wise all flags might be exposed to abuse, by their serving to cover piracy, the slave-trade, or any other illegal traffic; it is agreed, in order to prevent any difficulty in the execution of the present convention, that instructions, founded on the law of nations, and on the constant usages of maritime powers, shall be addressed to the commanding officers of the British and French squadrons and stations on the coast of Africa. The two governments have, accordingly, communicated to each other their respective instructions, which are annexed to this convention."
Article 7 slates : “In the three following months the right of search, as established by the convention of 1831-'33, shall cease to be exercised."
Under this treaty both powers issued instructions to naval commanders; and the English instructions ran as follows, dated May, 1845 :
" You are not to capture, visit, or in any way interfere with vessels of France ; and you will give strict instructions to the commanding officers of cruisers under your orders, to abstain therefrom."
Here the instructions, “founded on the law of nations,” are positive, pot even to “visit,” and yet the right, for which England has most strenuously contended, has been that of visiting" a vessel, to ascertain if she wears the flag to which she is entitled. The instructions go on to say, that when there are strong reasons to suspect fraud in the flag displayed, they may go ahead of the suspected vessel, and “ drop a boat on board without detaining her." “ If she really prove to be of the nation designated by her colors, and one which he is not authorised to search, (by treaty,) he is to lose no time in quitting her.”
By this treaty and instructions a vessel under a French flag may not be visited; what, then, becomes of all the fine
theories ? " T'hat the right of search, for the purpose of detention, or in fact for any purpose, except that of ascertaining the nationality of a vessel, is the creature of treaty, and exists, therefore, only in as far as it has been expressly conceded. But the right of search for the purpose of inquiry, was created, not by treaty, but by necessity.”
To add to the chagrin of Great Britain, Brazil gave notice that the treaty signed in 1817, conceding the right of search, expired March,
1845, and the right of search terminated, not to be henceforth exercised. What then is the position of England ? She has abandoned the right of visit and search. "If, at her own peril, a cruiser visits a vessel under Brazilian colors, and finds that she is really a Brazilian vessel, the hold may be full of slaves, and the officer inhibited from "search.” If she “visits” by mistake, because against orders, a French slaver, full of slaves, she cannot arrest her. She must “ lose no time in quitting her.” To such ridiculous results has English diplomacy arrived. To what purpose shall she ascertain nationality, when satisfied she is not Eng. lish ?
It would appear, therefore, as stated by Mr. Wheaton, that the right of maritime search, since the peace of Westphalia, has been confined to time of war; and has nol, as English writers contend, been extended tu times of peace, on pretence of the slave-trade.
The love that won thee did not speak,
The grief that mourns thee has no tear;
To lose them, neither well can bear ;-
And through the long succeeding years,
What hopeless memory still endears !
Let those, with mood more calin than mine,
Describe thy virtues as they will ;-
I've lost them, yet I love them still!
Their presence blesses mortal eye ;
And cannot, though their tomb may-die!
When all of earth that well could fade,
And beauty's sweetest blandishment,
Immortal as omnipotent !-
From all that weeping train apart,
One keeper of a madd'ning heart !
The young-the lovely to restore,—
Immortal, as the love it bore !
Unless it bid the buried live ;-
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH BETOLUTION OF 1640.
M. Guizot is well-known in this country as a statesman and historian, and the work before us especially claims our gratitude. So many erroneous opinions and accounts of the English Revolution, its character and objects, prevail, while the leading personages of that day are too often but little understood, that we hail with great joy the appearance, in a popular form, of a work so well calculated to dispel the mystery which prejudice and want of information have cast around the English Revolution. Besides all this, an account, by an impartial writer, involving such great principles, is always interesting, because it enables us more clearly to trace the promulgation and diffusion of that true liberty we now enjoy—to appreciate its blessings or to shun its abuses. We are also thus enabled to discern the causes, both remote and proximate, that induced such a departure from ordinary procedure, and are consequently more prepared to discover and thwart all designs with a tendency to the same order of things; for it is an erroneous, although common idea, that these revolutions are sudden and unexpected outbreaks, which some mighty spirit then in existence had caused, on account of an idea which fancy had implanted in his brain, of the existence of overwhelming evils and despotism which his destiny doomed him to overthrow. Persons entertaining such ideas, regard them as instances of the miracles of Providence, departing from all rules of nature, and arising entirely from new principles and causes then for the first time called into existence. Because these causes were unobserved by them before such revolutions brought them prominently into notice, they deny their existence, and invariably regard the chief characters of the day as having concocted the revolution, instead of considering that the exigencies and peculiarities of the times formed, in a great measure, the characters of the chief actors who then occupied the prominent places of the political world. The faults and the benefits of the revolution are thus judged of from the character of its leaders, and sometimes charged, too, either with their individual virtues or horrid barbarities. M. Guizot refutes this idea, in the following passage from his preface, while drawing a parallel between the English and French revolutions :
" Far from having interrupted the natural course of events in Europe, neither the English revolution nor our own ever said, wished, or did anything that had not been said, wished, done or attempted a hundred times before they burst forth. They proclaimed the illegality of absolute power. The free consent of the people in reference to laws and taxes, and the right of armed resistance, were elemental principles of the feudal system ; and the Church has often repeated those words of St. Isidore, which we find in the canons of the 4th Council of Toledo— He is king who rules his people with justice ; if he rule otherwise he shall no longer be king. They attacked prerogative, and sought to introduce greater equality into social order. Kings throughout Europe have done the same; and, down to our own times, the various steps in the progress of civil equality have been founded upon the laws and measured by the progress of royalty. They demanded that public offices should be thrown open to the citizens at large ; should be distributed according to merit only, and that power should be conferred by election. This is
• History of the English Revolution of 1640, commonly called the Great Rebellion, from the accession of Charles I. to his death. By F. Guizot, the Prime Minister of France, author of “ History of Civilization in Europe," &c, &c. Translated by William Hazlitt. In two volumes. New-York: D. Appleton & Co., 200 Broadway. VOL. XXI.--NO, CIX.
the fundamental principle of the internal government of the Church, which not only acts upon it, but has emphatically proclaimed its worth. Whether we consider the general doctrines of the two revolutions, or the results to which they were applied; whether we regard the government of the state or civil legislation-property or persons, liberty or power-nothing will be found of which the invention originated with them; nothing which is not equally met with, or which, at all events, did not come into existence in periods which are called regular. Nor is this all; those principles, those designs, those efforts, which are exclusively to the English Revolution, and to our own, not only preceded them by several centuries, but are precisely the same principles—the same efforts to which society in Europe owes all its progress. Was it by its disorders and its privileges, by its brute force, and by keeping men down beneath its yoke, that the feudal aristocracy took part in the development of nations ? No! it struggled against royal tyranny, exercised the right of resistance, and maintained the maxims of liberty. For what have nations blessed kings? Was it for their pretensions to divine right ?—to absolute power ? for their profusion ? for their courts ? No! kings assailed the feudal system and aristocratical privileges. They introduced unity into legislation and into the executive administration; they aided the progress of equality. And the clergy-whence does it derive its power ?—How has it promoted civilization ? Was it by separating itself from the people ; by taking fright at human reason; by sanctioning tyranny in the name of Heaven? No; it gathered together, without distinction, in its churches, and under the law of God, the great and the small, the poor and the rich, the weak and the strong. It honored and fostered science ; instituted schools ; favored the propagation of knowledge, and gave activity to the mind. Interrogate the history of the masters of the world ; examine the influ ence of the various classes which have decided its destiny ;-whenever any good shall manifest itself; wherever the lasting gratitude of man shall recognise a great service done to humanity, it will be seen that these were the steps toward the object which were pursued by the English Revolution and our own, and we shall find ourselves in the presence of one of the principles they sought to establish.”Preface, viii-x.
Our readers must pardon an extract from our author so long, and apparently so remote from our subject; but we wish to be clearly understood as to the manner in which we ought ever to regard these political phenomena. In order to give a general idea of the work before us, we shall follow our author in his history of the canses and results of the revolution, as well as its immediate aspect and the characters it produced. Meanwhile, we cannot avoid remarking that the work itself is an instance of the beneficial results of these revolutions. In the days of French despotism, what press would have dared to publish a work which proved that kings were only loved in proportion as they contributed to the equality and happiness of the people, from whom they derived their rights, instead of supporting their favorite theories of passive obedience and the divine superiority of monarchs.
The remote causes of the English Revolution are discernible as far back as the time when the feudal system prevailed, when the people were divided into two great classes—the serfs and the lords, with their chief the king.– Monarchy then had no power but that derived from the conquering aristocracy. The serfs were the slaves of the lords, alike to till their ground and to follow their banner to the battle-field. Upon them the nobles reeked their vengeance and ground them with oppression. The vassal's only protection was the Church, and the clergy in that dark age alone shielded from oppression and administered food to the moral nature of man. As the instructors of mankind, they acquired a prodigious influence, rivaling that of the lords in its extent. To them the king, tired of depending upon an overbearing aristocracy, applied for assistance. An alliance is formed between royalty and the Church, which surpasses the power of the nobles. In this manner the crown advanced by the aid of the Church, and by its own
inherent vigor, until at last it excites the jealousy of the clergy. Against them the crown had recourse to the diminishing aristocracy and to the people. Thus royalty became predominant with the clergy, and aristocracy subdued beneath it; but in the meantime, during these struggles the people were acquiring knowledge and maturity, not yet sufficiently strong or civ: ilized to assert its rights. By degrees the belligerent powers coalesced and sat down together to divide the spoils of an oppressed people. The invention of printing and the Reformation aided to throw aside the veil from the eyes of the people. They no longer bowed in slavish obedience in spiritual matters to the clergy; they began to search, to learn, to thiuk, and to act for themselves. The aristocracy were, however, still in a great measure the leaders at these events, while the power of the monarch was increased by the addition of ecclesiastical pre-eminence. The crown became enveloped in feebleness—the aristocracy degraded in effeminacy, and forced to seek means, by the sale of their estates to the richer Commons, to support their expensive profligacy. As the nobles, by these means, decreased in wealth and influence, the Commons increased. The extension of privileges, however, did not keep pace with the increase of wealth, and the rights which had hitherto been exercised by the king without dispute, were now inquired into, because felt by a greater number of persons. The Commons asserted their right to prescribe the duties of the crown, which, on the contrary, maintained its divine origin and the necessity of obedience, not inquiry. Thus they were at issue. Gratitude to their sovereigns for the overthrow of Popery at first prevented the people from marking the limits of a power to which they owed so much. Their silence was mistaken by imbecile monarchs and their more imbecile advisers for docile submission and cheerful acquiescence. The consequence was, the despotism of the throne became more intolerable; the remonstrances of the people more dignified nd resolute. They were unheeded, or the authors of them treated with contumelious barbarity. The spark became a flame, and the revolution was at hand.
This imperfect and rapid glance at the movements of society will enable us to perceive the origin of those causes which had accumulated, and were now, like a mighty avalanche, about to carry all before them. Such, indeed, was the state of affairs at the demise of James I., very aptly styled "the learned fool.” His son, Charles I., ascended the throne with the blessings of all. Never did a monarch enter upon his reign with more propitious circumstances. All eyes were turned towards him. His grave and dignified, but courteous demeanor; his acknowledged piety; his learning and frugality, while they kept bis courtiers in awe, pleased his subjects. In him they fancied they beheld one who would preserve the dignity of the crown, and establish the true liberty of the people—one who would arrest the profligacy of his nobles and reform the abuses of the Church-who would in all things consider the interests of his subjects synonymous with his own. They anticipated an end of the disputes between the king and the Parliament, which had so agitated the country in the previous reign. Parliament was convoked 2d April, 1625. •
“Scarcely was the House of Commons assembled, (18th June,) when a worthy man, who had been reckoned in the last reign one of the opponents of the court, Sir Benjamin Rudyard, rose, (22d of June,) and moved that henceforth nothing should be neglected to maintain a perfect harmony between the king and the people. For,' said he, what may we not expect from him, being king ? His good natural disposition, his freedom from vice, his travels abroad, his being bred in Parliament, promise greatly.'”—Vol. I., p. 25.
What a melancholy contrast was the close of the reign to this auspicious