separated themselves from the Northern if the expression of the wishes of the inhabitants, by a vote of universal suffrage or a plébiscite, could have enabled them to effect this disunion, even when the civil war first broke out, and the Government of Washington declared its steadfast intention of not interfering with the status of slavery in the Southern States.

VI. The application of the doctrine of INTERVENTION to Turkey (r) has produced events of great importance during the interval mentioned.

Turkey has been formally, and in a manner to place the question beyond all doubt, admitted, by the Treaty of Paris, into the family of States which are bound, not only, as all States are, by the principles of PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW, but by those usages and customs which constitute what may be considered the Positive Law of Christian Communities. The object of the Treaty of Paris is to secure, through effectual and reciprocal guarantees, the independence and integrity of the Ottoman Em"pire" (s). This result is the subject of a common Guarantee (t). The Plenipotentiaries declare that "the Sublime Porte is admitted to participate in the

66

66

advantages of the Public Law and system (concert) "of Europe" (u). This proposition must receive, as to PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW, some obvious limitation from the very nature of Mohammedanism : though it be true that this religion is professed by a

(r) Pt. ii. ch. i. of this volume.

(8) Preamble.

(t) Article vii.

(u) Art. vii. of the Treaty of Paris, 30 March, 1856.

comparatively small number of the subjects of European Turkey; but the proposition holds good as to PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW; and the fact which it affirms marks an important epoch in the History of the Progress of International Jurisprudence. For if Turkey has acquired the Rights, she has also subjected herself to the Duties of a civilized Community. How long this new condition of things, so utterly at variance with the former traditions and habits of Christendom, may endure, is a speculation without the province of this work. It is to be remarked, however, even in this place, that this condition is the more complicated because the same Treaty which recognizes this quasi-Christian status (x) of the Turkish Empire, contains the following most singular provision, which might almost seem intended at once to recognize and to prohibit the Right of INTERVENTION by the Powers of Christendom on behalf of their co-religionists:

"His Imperial Majesty the Sultan having, in his "constant solicitude for the welfare of his subjects, "issued a firman which, while ameliorating their "condition without distinction of religion or of race, "records his generous intentions towards the Chris"tian population of his Empire, and wishing to give "a further proof of his sentiments in that respect, "has resolved to communicate to the Contracting "Parties the said firman, emanating spontaneously "from his Sovereign Will.

"The Contracting Powers recognize the high value "of this communication. It is clearly understood

(x) The Sultan has even received from the Queen of England the essentially Christian Order of the Garter.

"that it cannot, in any case, give to the said Powers "the right to interfere, either collectively or separately, in the relations of His Majesty the Sultan "with his subjects, nor in the internal administration "of his Empire" (y).

It remains to be seen whether this firman be put into bona fide execution, or whether M. Guizot be right in (2) his opinion that European intervention in Turkey is at once inevitable and of no avail. The immiscible characters of Christian and Turk are still attested by the exemption of the former from the civil and criminal jurisdiction of Turkish tribunals.

The Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia and of Servia are placed under the Suzeraineté of the Porte, and the Guarantee of the Protecting Powers, but

(y) Article ix.

(2) "Il y a, dans les relations de l'Europe chrétienne avec l'empire ottoman, un vice incurable: nous ne pouvons pas ne pas demander aux Turcs ce que nous leur demandons pour leurs sujets chrétiens, et ils ne peuvent pas, même quand ils se résignent à nous le promettre, faire ce que nous leur demandons. L'intervention européenne en Turquie est à la fois inévitable et vaine. Pour que les gouvernements et les peuples agissent efficacement les uns sur les autres par les conseils, les exemples, les rapports, et les engagements diplomatiques, il faut qu'il y ait, entre eux, un certain degré d'analogie et de sympathie dans les mœurs, les idées, les sentiments, dans les grands traits et les grands courants de la civilisation et de la vie sociale. Il n'y a rien de semblable entre les chrétiens européens et les Turcs; ils peuvent, par nécessité, par politique, vivre en paix à côté les uns des autres; ils restent toujours étrangers les uns aux autres; en cessant de se combattre, ils n'en viennent pas à se comprendre. Les Turcs n'ont été en Europe que des conquérants destructeurs et stériles, incapables de s'assimiler les populations tombées sous leur joug, et également incapables de se laisser pénétrer et transformer par elles ou par leurs voisins.

"Combien de temps durera encore le spectacle de cette incompatibilité radicale qui ruine et dépeuple de si belles contrées, et condamne à tant de misères tant de millions d'hommes ? Nul ne peut le prévoir; mais la scène ne changera pas tant qu'elle sera occupée par les mêmes acteurs."Guizot, Mémoire de mon Temps, t. vi. ch. xxxvii. pp. 257-8

without "any separate right of interfering in their "internal affairs" (a).

VII. With respect to INTERVENTION in the internal affairs of an independent State (b), Greece during the Russian war (1856) afforded an instance in which this exceptional right, the offspring of necessity, has been exercised both by France and England, as it should seem upon two grounds: -(1) That the sending of foreign troops to Greece was necessitated by the unneutral conduct of the Government of that country towards Russia, the enemy of France and England; (2) and also that this course was justified by the open, notorious, and admitted insecurity of life and property to French and English subjects commorant or resident in Greece. It should also be added, that Greece does not appear to have formally protested against, or seriously objected to-probably on account of the undeniable inefficiency of her own internal police the temporary introduction of these foreign troops into her territory (c).

(a) Articles xxii.-xxviii.

(b) Pt. ii. ch. ii. of this volume.

(c)" It cannot be denied," Count Walewski says, "that Greece is in an abnormal state. The anarchy to which that country was a prey, has compelled France and England to send troops to the Piræus at a time when their armies, nevertheless, did not want occupation. The Congress knows in what state Greece was; neither is it ignorant that that in which it now is, is far from being satisfactory. Would it not therefore be advantageous that the Powers represented in the Congress should manifest the wish to see the three protecting Courts take into serious consideration the deplorable situation of the kingdom which they have created, and devise means to make provision for it?

"Count Walewski does not doubt that the Earl of Clarendon will join with him in declaring that the two Governments await with impatience the time when they shall be at liberty to terminate an occupation to which nevertheless they are unable without the most serious inconvenience to put an end, so long as real modifications shall not be introduced into the state of things in Greece."--Extract from 22nd Protocol to Treaty of Paris (1856).

VIII. The INTERVENTION of different Foreign Powers at different periods in the affairs of Rome, on the ground of preserving the anomalous position of the Pope as a temporal prince, appears at last to be at an end. The whole question of the International position of the Pope is considered in the second volume of this work (d).

IX. There is a kind of INTERVENTION which is touched upon in this volume-though dealt with at greater length in the later volume, which relates to International Duties and Rights in time of War—

(d) The following passages are to be found in the Twenty-second Protocol to the Treaty of Paris, 1856:-"The first Plenipotentiary of France then observes that the Pontifical States are equally in an abnormal state; that the necessity for not leaving the country to anarchy, had decided France as well as Austria to comply with the demand of the Holy See by causing Rome to be occupied by her troops, while the Austrian troops occupied the Legations.

"He states that France had a twofold motive for complying without hesitation with the demand of the Holy See, as a Catholic Power and as an European Power. The title of eldest son of the Church which is the boast of the Sovereign of France makes it a duty for the Emperor to afford aid and support to the Sovereign Pontiff; the tranquillity of the Roman States and that of the whole of Italy affects too closely the maintenance of social order in Europe for France not to have an overbearing interest in securing it by all the means in her power. But, on the other hand, it is impossible to overlook the abnormal condition of a Power which, in order to maintain itself, requires to be supported by foreign troops.

"Count Walewski does not hesitate to declare, and he trusts that Count Buol will join in the declaration, that not only is France ready to withdraw her troops, but that she earnestly desires to recall them so soon as that can be done without inconvenience as regard the internal tranquillity of the country and the authority of the Pontifical Government, in the prosperity of which the Emperor, his august Sovereign, takes the most lively interest.

"The first Plenipotentiary of France represents how desirable it is for the balance of power in Europe that the Roman Government should be consolidated in sufficient strength for the French and Austrian troops to be able, without inconvenience, to evacuate the Pontifical States."-Ann. Reg. 1860, p. 215.

See also last page of this volume.