OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

LONDON EDINBURGH GLASGOW NEW YORK TORONTO MELBOURNE BOMBAY HUMPHREY MILFORD M.A.

PUBLISHER TO THE UNIVERSITY

PREFACE

In the latter part of the War of the Austrian Succession a dispute arose between Frederick the Great and the British Government respecting the laws of war at sea, particularly those which govern the definition of contraband and the right of capturing enemy goods in neutral ships. Neither party being willing to give way, Frederick at last announced, and acted on, his intention of retaining the final instalment of a debt due from him to English bondholders, in order to provide compensation for the owners of Prussian ships and cargoes, who he alleged had been unjustly treated by the English prize courts. He presented a long memorial embodying his views, to which the English Government replied, stating the law of nations on these subjects, and justifying their procedure. They maintained also that Frederick had no right to withhold a debt due from him to private persons, by way of reprisals on the British Government. The debt, known as the Silesian Loan, had been originally contracted by the Emperor Charles VI, who paid neither the interest nor the instalments of principal stipulated in the contract. When Maria Theresa was induced by the British Government to make peace with Frederick and cede to him the province of Silesia which he had seized, he undertook to discharge the debt. For several years he paid little or nothing, and made repeated attempts to escape from his obligation. Finally, when it became evident to both parties that a close alliance between them was necessary, in order to preserve Germany as a whole and Hanover in particular from invasion by

289179

France, they entered into the Treaty of Westminster of January 1756, a few months before the commencement of the Seven Years' War. On this occasion the British Government, as an entirely separate transaction, agreed to pay Frederick a sum equal to about two-thirds of what he had claimed, on condition that he first removed the sequestration of the amount due to the bondholders.

The affair aroused widespread interest at the time. The British Government communicated the documents to friendly Powers, and invited their intervention or assistance. France declined to put pressure on Frederick, and affected to take his side of the argument, although French prize-law was antagonistic to his pretensions. Holland tried to get something for herself out of the dispute. Austria replied that she was not on terms with Frederick, and wandered off into recriminations about the Barrier Treaty. Russia was willing to lend troops against Frederick, if the necessity arose, but demanded an exorbitant price for her services. The Russian Vice-Chancellor hoped incidentally to fill his pockets. Spain declared herself in sympathy with England, but expressed no opinion as to the merits of the controversy.

This cause célèbre du droit des gens is mentioned in various historical works and treatises on international law, but the whole facts have never been correctly stated. The Gentleman's Magazine started off with several inaccuracies, which were repeated by a succession of authors, until Carlyle took in hand to misrepresent them altogether.

Opportunity has been taken in the following narrative to give some account of Legge's mission to Berlin in 1748 to propose a treaty of alliance, a transaction hardly mentioned by Carlyle.

The documents which have been placed together in the Appendices have, with but one exception, never been printed before. They show how closely international politics and international law are connected with each other.

I take advantage of this occasion to acknowledge my indebtedness to Dr. Fruin and Mr. H. T. Colenbrander, of the Rijksarchief at the Hague, for valuable assistance in procuring copies of documents which were not otherwise available; to Dr. Oppenheim, Whewell Professor of International Law at Cambridge, for the loan of books and helpful suggestions; and to the Rev. Professor T. J. Lawrence, formerly lecturer on International Law at the Naval War College, to Mr. Hubert Hall and Mr. H. E. Headlam of the Public Record Office, and to the authorities of the MSS. department of the British Museum, for facilitating my access to papers in their charge; to Miss E. Mees of the Hague, Mr. W. H. Powell, and Miss Alice J. Mayes for the care with which they have made transcripts for me; to my friend Mr. A. Allan Shand, and lastly to Mr. Percy S. Allen for kindly undertaking to read the proofs of this volume.