Изображения страниц

respectively, yet theoretically they were not at war with each other. Hence Prussian vessels were nominally neutral and Frederick insisted that enemy goods on neutral vessels should not be seized, unless they were contraband. England refused to admit the principle. All of the remaining chapters, from the fourth to the sixteenth, are devoted to a study of the long negotiations between Prussia and England in an effort to reach a satisfactory settlement of the question.

Frederick had paid only a small portion of the debt due the English merchants before the dispute over the seizures arose. As the prospect of his obtaining for Prussian merchants compensation from England for their losses grew darker and darker he first hinted, then suggested, then threatened that he would confiscate the unpaid portion of the loan due to the English merchants and out of it compensate Prussian merchants for their losses. England pleaded that this would be a violation of good faith in treaties and of the good name of a sovereign, since there was no other security for the payment of a debt owed by a sovereign of one country to individuals of another country. Prussia insisted that verbal assurance had been given by an English Minister, Carteret, that England would not confiscate enemy goods, not contraband, in neutral vessels. Admiralty courts and judicial commissions in both countries investigated the merits of both questions, and memoirs and pro-memoirs passed between the governments.

While negotiations were pending Frederick made four additional partial payments in 1749, 1750, and 1751. But in 1752 he placed an embargo on the forty-five thousand pounds still unpaid. For more than three years matters remained without change. The final amicable settlement was due, not to the merits or demerits of the contentions of either country, or to the concessions made by both, but to the exigencies of the contemporary diplomatic situation.

The Anglo-French commercial and colonial war had begun. Each was searching for allies or for promises of neutrality. Austria had abandoned the English alliance and for years had been drawing nearer to France. Prussia had no desire to renew the former alliance with France. England made a subsidy treaty with Russia to become operative in case Prussia should join France and attack Hanover. Frederick learned of this, and determined to sacrifice something for an understanding with England to render innocuous the Anglo-Russian rapprochement. He promised to accept a much smaller payment than he had been claiming from England in compensation for the losses of his merchants and

did not insist on a formal endorsement of the principle he had been contending for. If England would settle on this basis he would raise the embargo on the unpaid forty-five thousand pounds of the loan and pay also the accumulated interest amounting to about a fourth as much more. England was willing and offered to pay even more than Frederick had said he would be willing to accept, which, however, was still only about two-thirds what he had claimed all along. Twenty thousand pounds was the amount paid by England. In his conclusion the author says:

To the English ministry, as the form of declaration exchanged with Michell did not mention the grounds on which payment was held to be due, the expenditure of so trifling a sum must have seemed a very insignificant price for an alliance which it was expected would protect the king's German dominions from invasion. Moreover, by signing this treaty they stood to save £500,000 a year which they would have had to pay for the Russian auxiliary force, if it had been required to assist in repelling an attack from Frederick. They sacrificed no principle of international law as they conceived it, and their reply to the Prussian arguments had been left without a rejoinder. It is probable that they considered the promises given by Carteret in respect of Prussian ships and cargoes, somewhat without reflection and in ignorance of the practice of English prize-courts, to constitute a debt of honor which they could not ultimately evade. If so, they certainly took a right view. The word of a minister for foreign affairs given to the diplomatic agent of a friendly Power is binding in honor on the government and the nation which he represents.

Simultaneously with this settlement the Convention of Westminster of January, 1756, was concluded, which was the defensive alliance between England and Prussia that ripened the next year into the close offensive and defensive alliance which bound them together against the similar alliance between France and Austria taking shape at the same time.

Students of international law will welcome this full presentation of this famous case that is so frequently cited as a precedent in studies and cases involving the status of enemy gocds on neutral ships, the retention of money owed by a sovereign or government of one country to citizens of another as a means of reprisal, and the confiscation or repudiation of public debts. Students of diplomatic history will welcome it for the interesting light which it casts on the triangular relations between Austria, England and Prussia from the beginning of the Austrian Succession War to the beginning of the Seven Years' War.

The author has practically closed his book to a considerable number of readers who might have used it because he has yielded to the temptation, which unfortunately many amateurs especially yield to, of intro

ducing into the body of the page quotations from foreign languages. To be sure not many who are unable to read French or German will care to follow in detail such a technical study in international law or diplomacy; but there may be some. It shows better taste for an author to translate or summarize such statements in the body of his page and, if there is any special significance in the original, quote it in full in the footnotes or appendices. This enables the technical student to get all the value there is in the original and still leaves it possible for the possessor of a single language to follow the thought of the writer. In the case of his lengthy French quotations the author has given a fairly full condensed summary of the thought in his very helpful marginal topics which he supplies opposite his English as well as French paragraphs.



[For table of references, see Chronicle of International Events, page 379]

American Institute of International Law. American (The) Institute of International Law. James Brown Scott. Advocate of Peace, 78:8. Jan.

Associación (La) Internaciónal Américana. R. Diplomática y Consular Argentina, 1:65. Nov., 1915.

Pan (The) American Union and the American Institute of International
Law. Advocate of Peace, 78:17. Jan.

Armaments. Kriegsgewinne grosser Rüstungsunternehmungen in Deutschland.
Oscar Stillich. Friedens Warte, 18:17. Jan.
Balkans. Balkan (The) cauldron. W. Morton Fullerton. World's Work, 31:442.

Balkans (The) and diplomacy. J. W. Headlam. Atlantic, 117:122. Jan. British diplomacy in the Near East. Quarterly R., 227:164. Jan. Bukarester (Der) Frieden. Dr. Freiherr von Jettel. Deutsche R., 40 (4): 276. Dec.

Factors in the problem of the Near East. J. A. R. Marriott. Fortnightly, 96:448. March.

Hellenic (The) factor in the problem of the Near East. J. A. R. Marriott. Edinburgh R., 223:21. Jan.

Zusammenbruch (Der) Serbiens und der Geschichte.


der Entente-mächte. Von einem österreichisch-ungarischen Diplomaten. Deutsche R., 41 (1):99. Jan.

Belgium. Belgium and Pan-Netherlandism. Raymond Colleye de Weerdt. Contemporary, 99:378. March.

-German methods of penetration in Belgium. Henri Davignon. Quarterly
R., 225:130. Jan.

[ocr errors]

Neutralität (Die) Belgiens und die Festungsverträge. Josef Kohler. Z. für Völkerrecht, 9:298.

[ocr errors]

Blockade. See: International Law.

Bulgaria. Bulgarien und die Zentralmächte.

Ivan Gheorgor.

Runds, 46:58. Jan.

China. China, Japan and the Hundred Days. E. B. Milford. Atlantic, 117:233. Feb.


Restoration (The) of monarchy in China. J. O. P. Bland. Edinburgh R., 223:10. Jan.

Yuan Shih-Kai and the throne of China. Frederick Moore. World's Work, 31:370. Feb.

Consuls. Origen y evolución de la institución consular. Daniel Antocoletz. R.

Diplomatica y Consular Argentina, 1:42. Nov., 1915. Contraband of War. See: International Law.

Contributions. Contributions de guerre mensuelles imposées par l'Allemagne sur pays d'occupation. Edouard Clunet. Clunet, 43:48.

Courts. Our Canadian-American High Court.

Reviews (N. Y.), 53:181. Feb.

Lawrence J. Burpee. Review of

Justiciability (The) of international disputes. Jesse S. Reeves. Amer. Political Science R., 10:44. Feb.

Cuba. Cuba y Hawaii. José Sixto de Sola. Cuba Contemporánea, 9:313. Dec., 1915.

Declaration of Rights of Nations. Declaration of the rights and duties of nations adopted by the American Institute of International Law at its first session in the city of Washington. January 6, 1916. Advocate of Peace, 78:63. March. Denmark. Denmark and the great war. With map. Geoffrey Pyke. Fortnightly, 96:33. Jan.

Diplomacy. Carrera diplomática y consular. R. Diplomática y Consular Argentina, 1:53. Nov., 1915.

Diplomacia y diplomáticos. R. Diplomática y Consular Argentina, 1:3. Nov., 1915.

Enemy Subjects. Déclaration des biens des sujets ennemis en Allemagne. Clunet, 43:86.

Du rôle des Administrateurs-Séquestres des biens appartenant à des sujets ennemis en France. A. Reulos. Clunet, 43:5.

European War. Al margen de la guerra. Triunfo financiero de Alleman Alemania.
P. Maximiliano Estábanez. España y América, 14:494. Dec., 1915.
Anglo-Swedish opposition. Robert Crozier Long.


Fortnightly, 96:235.

Aus den Sinn dieses Krieges. Hermann Keyserling. Friedens Warte, 18:12. Jan.

Danish (The) agreement and the feeding of Germany. Quarterly R., 225:267. Jan.

De Europa en llamas. Palabras de un neutrale. Luis Rodriguez Embil. Cuba Contemporánea, 7:189. Feb., 1915. Deutschland und der Weltkrieg.

shefte, 1915:177. Nov.

Johann Haller. Süddeutsche Monat

Economics and the war. J. A. R. Marriott. Fortnightly, 96:71. Jan.
Economists on war. F. Y. Edgworth. Economic J., 25:604. Jan.

Has the present war justified M. Bloch's conclusions based upon his work on "The future of war"? Economist, 82:8. Jan.

Hoever moeten onze wenschen gaan? B. de Jong van Beek en Donk. Vrede door Recht, 16:286. Dec.

Influence de la guerre sur les contrats de fourniture et sur certaines catégories de vente à prix courant d'après la doctrine allemand. Neukamp. Clunet, 43:66.

Krieg (Der) gegen England. Wilhelm Weiler. Süddeutsche Monats.,

1915:283. Dec.

Krigens Okonomi. L. V. Birck. Gads Dansk M., 10:168. Dec.
Nostra (La) dichiarazione di guerra. R. diritto int., 9:182.

Our nearest and dearest enemies. E. J. Dillon. Fortnightly, 96:1. Jan.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »