tution of government. No foreign State can lawfully interfere with the exercise of this right, unless such interference is authorized by some special compact, or by such a clear case of necessity as immediately affects its own independence, freedom, and security. Non-interference is the general rule, to which cases of justifiable interference form exceptions limited by the necessity of each particular case.39 Mediation of foreign § 73. The approved usage of nations authorizes the States for proposal by one State of its good offices or mediation for the settlement of the intestine dissensions of another the internal State. When such offer is accepted by the contending the settle ment of dissensions Treaties of of a State. parties, it becomes a just title for the interference of the mediation mediating power.40 and guaranty. Such a title may also grow out of positive compact [39 Heffter asserts that the right of States is, like that of private persons, to fly to the assistance of neighbors whose existence or fundamental rights are threatened. In view of the serious consequences of such interventions, he recommends and urges the duty of amicable mediation, and other measures short of force. He applies this right to civil wars as well as to wars between recognized nations. Europäische Völker, § 46.]—D. [40 Mediation. Publicists have assigned the words "intervention" and "interposition" to express the interference of one State in the affairs of another by force, or with force as the known ultimate sanction. Of that character were the interventions of the Holy Alliance, and all those interventions made by the five great powers to control the relations of the States of Europe, usually at first in the form of advice, but with the purpose of using coercion if necessary: as in the war for Greek independence, and in the revolution of Belgium in 1830. But the term "mediation " is limited to an offer of advice or of assistance in the way of arbitration, leaving the acceptance of the offer to the free will of the other party. The Emperor of Russia has several times made such an offer where the United States were concerned. In 1812, he offered to mediate between them and Great Britain; an offer which was accepted by the United States, but declined by the latter power. (Wait's State Papers, ix. 223; President Madison's message, May 25, 1813; Hansard's Debates, xxx. 526.) In this case, he did not offer himself as an arbitrator whose award the parties would agree to accept, but as one who, by permission of the parties, after examining into the causes of the controversy, should give advice and recommendations. Again, he offered himself as an arbitrator in the difference as to the construction of the clause of the treaty of Ghent respecting the restoration of captured slaves. In this case, his offer was accepted, and an award made, which was carried into effect by the convention of July 12, 1822. United States Laws, viii. 282, 344; Martens' Nouveau Recueil, vi. 66. In 1836, the King of England offered his mediation between France and the United States, when President Jackson had threatened reprisals for the failure of France to pay the indemnities under the convention of July 4, 1831. The offer was accepted by both parties; but the mediation became unnecessary, as France complied with the demand of the United States. Ann. Reg. 1836, i. 327. England again offered mediation between the United States and Mexico in 1847; but the offer was not accepted by either previously existing, such as treaties of mediation and guaranty. Of this nature was the guaranty by France and Sweden of the Germanic Constitution at the peace of Westphalia in 1648, the result of the thirty years' war waged by the princes and States of Germany for the preservation of their civil and religious liberties against the ambition of the House of Austria. The Republic of Geneva was connected by an ancient alliance with the Swiss Cantons of Berne and Zurich, in consequence of which they united with France, in 1738, in offering the joint mediation of the three powers to the contending political parties by which the tranquillity of the Republic was disturbed. The party. There have been instances of offers of mediation in civil wars; but they present cases of such delicacy and difficulty as to have been seldom accepted, or, if accepted, successful. The offer of Great Britain, in 1847, to mediate between the Queen of Portugal and the insurgents, was accepted by the Queen, but the terms suggested by the four powers were rejected by the Junta; and the end was a compulsory demonstration on the part of England, France, and Spain. (Hansard's Debates, xcii. 306, 1291; xciii. 417-466. Annual Register, 1847, p. 346.) In 1849, France and England offered mediation between the King of Naples and his Sicilian subjects; but it was declined by the Sicilians, and they were left to be subjugated by the king. Annuaire, 1849, p. 615. In 1856, France and England remonstrated with the King of the Two Sicilies for the unfair trials and cruel treatment of political prisoners. The king taking offence at this, those powers withdrew their legations, and sent a naval force to give instant protection to their subjects and property within the kingdom, if they should be in peril. The Russian Government protested against this course, as an attempt to coerce a sovereign in the management of the internal affairs of his State. (Annual Register, 1856, p. 234. Martens' Nouveau Recueil, xv. 759.) During the civil war in the United States, Russia made to the government an offer of its friendly offices to put an end to the war; but, upon the theory of preserving the integrity of the Union. (Prince Gortschakoff to Baron Stoeckl, July 10, 1861.) Mr. Seward acknowledged the offer and expressed the satisfaction with which the President regarded this new proof of the long friendship between the two countries, but expressed no intention to accept it. The French Government afterwards asked the attention of England and Russia to a joint offer of mediation. The British Government thought it not expedient to take any step in that direction at that time. The Russian Government apprehended that the proposed joint action would have the appearance in the United States of pressure, and would excite fears of intervention. The French Government, however, by a despatch of M. Drouyn de l'Huys to M. Mercier, of Jan. 9, 1863, offered to place itself at the disposal of the belligerent parties to facilitate negotiations between them. This was declined by Mr. Seward, in a despatch to Mr. Dayton, of Feb. 6, 1863; and the European powers became satisfied that any further offers of mediation would not be regarded by the United States as prompted by a friendly spirit. Circular of the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, of Oct. 30, 1862. Earl Russell to Earl Cowley, Nov. 18, 1862. The Emperor's address to the Legislative Chambers, Jan. 12, 1863. Le Livre Jaune, 1863. M. Drouyn de l'Huys to M. Mercier, Jan. 9, 1863. Mr. Seward to Mr. Dayton, Feb. 6, 1863. Mr. Dayton to Mr. Seward, Feb. 26, 1863. U. S. Dipl. Corr. 1863, i.] — D. result of this mediation was the settlement of a constitution, which giving rise to new disputes in 1768, they were again adjusted by the intervention of the mediating powers. In 1782, the French government once more united with these Cantons and the court of Sardinia in mediating between the aristocratic and democratic parties; but it appears to be very questionable how far these transactions, especially the last, can be reconciled with the respect due, on the strict principles of international law, to the just rights and independence of the smallest, not less than to those of the greatest States. (a) The present constitution of the Swiss Confederation was also adjusted, in 1815, by the mediation of the great allied powers, and subsequently recognized by them at the Congress of Vienna as the basis of the federative compact of Switzerland. By the same act the united Swiss Cantons guaranty their respective local constitutions of government. (b) So also the local constitutions of the different States composing the Germanic Confederation may be guaranteed by the Diet on the application of the particular State in which the constitution is established; and this guarantee gives the Diet the right of determining all controversies respecting the interpretation and execution of the constitution thus established and guarantied. (c) And the Constitution of the United States of America guarantees to each State of the federal Union a republican form of government, and engages to protect each of them against invasion, and, on application of the local authorities, against domestic violence. (d) pendence of the choice of Inde- § 74. This perfect independence of every sovereign every State State, in respect to its political institutions, extends to the in respect to choice of the supreme magistrate and other rulers, as its rulers. well as to the form of government itself. In hereditary governments, the succession to the crown being regulated by the fundamental laws, all disputes respecting the succession are rightfully settled by the nation itself, independently of the interference or control of foreign powers. So also in elective (a) Flassan, Histoire de la Diplomatie Française, tom. v. p. 78, tom. vii. pp. 27, 297. (b) Acte Final du Congrès de Vienne, art. 74. (c) Wiener Schlussacte, vom 15 Mai, 1820, art. 62. Corpus Juris Germanici, von Mayer, tom. ii. p. 196. (d) Constitution of the United States, art. 3. governments, the choice of the chief or other magistrates ought to be freely made, in the manner prescribed by the constitution of the State, without the intervention of any foreign influence or authority. (a) other just tervention. § 75. The only exceptions to the application of these Excepgeneral rules arise out of compact, such as treaties of tions growing out of alliance, guarantee, and mediation, to which the State compact or itself whose concerns are in question has become a party; right of inor formed by other powers in the exercise of a supposed right of intervention growing out of a necessity involving their own particular security, or some contingent danger affecting the general security of nations. Such, among others, were the wars relating to the Spanish succession, in the beginning of the eighteenth century, and to the Bavarian and Austrian successions, in the latter part of the same century. The history of modern Europe also affords many other examples of the actual interference of foreign powers in the choice of the sovereign or chief magistrate of those States where the choice was constitutionally determined by popular election, or by an elective council, such as in the cases of the head of the Germanic Empire, the King of Poland, and the Roman Pontiff; but in these cases no argument can be drawn from the fact to the right. In the particular case, however, of the election of the Pope, who is the supreme pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church, as well as a temporal sovereign, the Emperor of Austria, and the Kings of France and Spain have, by ancient usage, each a right to exclude one candidate. (a) Quadruple 1834 be France, ain, Portu § 76. The quadruple alliance, concluded in 1834 between France, Great Britain, Spain, and Portugal, affords alliance of a remarkable example of actual interference in the ques- tween tions relating to the succession to the crown in the two Great Britlatter kingdoms, growing out of compacts to which they gal, and were parties, formed in the exercise of a supposed right of Spain. interference for the preservation of the peace of the Peninsula as well as the general peace of Europe. Having already stated in another work the historical circumstances which gave rise to the quadruple alliance, as well as its terms and conditions, it will only be necessary here to recapitulate the leading principles, which (a) Vattel, Droit des Gens, liv. i. ch. 5, §§ 66, 67. (a) Klüber, Droit des Gens Moderne de l'Europe, Part. II. tit. 1, ch. 2, § 48. may be collected from the debate in the British Parliament, in 1835, upon the measures adopted by the British government to carry into effect the stipulations of the treaty. 1. The legality of the order in council permitting British subjects to engage in the military service of the Queen of Spain, by exempting them from the general operation of the act of Parliament of 1819, forbidding them from enlisting in foreign military service, was not called in question by Sir Robert Peel and the other speakers on the part of the opposition. Nor was the obligation of the treaty of quadruple alliance, by which the British government was bound to furnish arms and the aid of a naval force to the Queen of Spain, denied by them. Yet it was asserted, that without a declaration of war, it would be with the greatest difficulty that the special obligation of giving naval aid could be fulfilled, without placing the force of such a compact in opposition to the general binding nature of international law. Whatever might be the special obligation imposed on Great Britain by the treaty, it could not warrant her in preventing a neutral State from receiving a supply of arms. She had no right, without a positive declaration of war, to stop the ships of a neutral country on the high seas. 2. It was contended that the suspension of the foreign enlistment law was equivalent to a direct military interference in the domestic affairs of another nation. The general rule on which Great Britain had hitherto acted was that of non-interference. The only exceptions admitted to this rule were cases where the necessity was urgent and immediate; affecting, either on account of vicinage, or some special circumstances, the safety or vital interests of the State. To interfere on the vague ground that British interests would be promoted by the intervention, on the plea that it would be for their advantage to see established a particular form of government in Spain, would be to destroy altogether the general rule of non-intervention, and to place the independence of every weak power at the mercy of its formidable neighbors. It was impossible to deny that an act which the British government permitted, authorizing British soldiers and subjects to enlist in the service of a foreign power, and allowing them to be organized in Great Britain, was a recognition of the doctrine of the propriety of assisting by a military force a foreign government against an insurrection of its own subjects. When |