vention of the 15th July, 1840, between four of the great European powers, Austria, Great Britain, Prussia, and Russia, to which the Ottoman Porte acceded, and in consequence of which Mehemet Ali was compelled to relinquish the possession of all the provinces held by him, except Egypt, the hereditary pachalic of which was confirmed to him, according to the conditions contained in the separate article of the convention. (b) 38

(b) Wheaton's Hist. Law of Nations, 563–583. [38 Intervention in the Ottoman Empire. The moving causes of intervention in the affairs of the Ottoman Empire were the apprehension that Russia would gain a formidable preponderance in Europe, if she became, substantially if not in form, the mistress of the Black Sea and the Dardanelles, and the great interest of England to preserve the existence of a neutralized and guarantied power in Egypt and the Levant with reference to her Indian empire. In the controversy between Turkey and Russia in 1853-54, which arose in part out of the claim of the Czar to a protectorate over the Christian subjects of the Sultan, and resulted in the Crimean war, Great Britain and France intervened on the side of Turkey, as parties to the treaties for guarantying her independence. Sardinia afterwards joined the alliance. The result of the war was the treaty of Paris of March 30, 1856, between Great Britain, France, Russia, Austria, Prussia, Sardinia, and Turkey. Article VII of this treaty declares the Sublime Porte "admise à participer aux avantages du droit public et du concert Européens ; " and all the parties promise to respect the independence and territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire; and they declare any act in derogation of the same to be a matter of general interest. By Article VIII, it is agreed, that, if any dispute shall arise between either of the parties and Turkey, menacing their peaceful relations, an opportunity for mediation shall be given to the other powers. Article IX refers to the firman of the Sultan, of Feb. 18, 1856, securing civil equality to his Christian subjects, as a spontaneous offer by the Sultan; and the parties disclaim any right to interfere between the Sultan and his subjects, or in the internal affairs of his empire. By Articles XI-XIV, the Black Sea is neutralized, and open to the commerce of the world; but closed against vessels of war, except a limited force of Russia and Turkey, for coast-service. By Articles XV-XIX, the Danube is thrown open to commerce, on the principle of a river common to several independent nations. Articles XX-XXVI alter the limits of Bessarabia, with the view of depriving Russia of the control of the mouths of the Danube, which are now included in the provinces of Moldavia and Wallachia, guarantied by Articles XXI-XXVII. Servia is placed under similar guaranties by Articles XXVIII and XXIX. The boundaries in Asia of Russia and Turkey are to be maintained, and, if necessary, to be traced by a mixed commission.

By a treaty between Great Britain, France, and Austria, signed at Paris on the 15th April, 1856, those powers guaranty jointly and severally the independence and integrity of the Ottoman Empire, as recorded in the treaty of Paris of 30 March, 1856, and agree that they will consider any infraction of the stipulations of that treaty as a casus belli.

A supplementary treaty of Paris, of March 30, 1856, between Great Britain, France, Russia, Prussia, and Austria, as parties to the treaty of London of 13 July, 1841, and Sardinia as a new party, on the one part, and the Sultan on the other, the Sultan agrees to adhere to the rule of excluding all vessels of war from the Dardanelles while he is at peace, except such as the treaty powers shall agree to maintain at

five great

Revolution

§ 71. The interference of the five great European pow- Interferers represented in the conference of London, in the ence of the Belgic Revolution of 1830, affords an example of the ap- powers in European plication of this right to preserve the general peace, and the Belgic to adapt the new order of things to the stipulations of of 1830. the treaties of Paris and Vienna, by which the kingdom of the Netherlands had been created. We have given, in another work, a full account of the long and intricate negotiations relating to the separation of Belgium from Holland, which assumed alternately the character of a pacific mediation and of an armed intervention, according to the varying circumstances of the contest, and which was finally terminated by a compromise between the two great opposite principles which so long threatened to disturb the established order and general peace of Europe. The Belgic Revolution was recognized as an accomplished fact, whilst its legal consequences were limited within the strictest bounds, by refusing to Belgium the attributes of the rights of conquest and of postliminy, and by depriving her of a great part of the province of Luxembourg, of the left bank of the Scheldt, and of the right bank of the Meuse. The five great powers, representing Europe, consented to the separation of Belgium from Holland, and admitted the former among the independent States of Europe, upon conditions which were accepted by her and have become the bases of her public law. These conditions were subsequently incorporated into a definitive treaty, concluded between Belgium and Holland in 1839, by which the independence of the former was finally recognized by the latter. (a)

Inde

of the State to its inter

§ 72. Every State, as a distinct moral being, independent of every other, may freely exercise all its sovereign pendence rights in any manner not inconsistent with the equal in respect rights of other States. Among these is that of estab- nal governlishing, altering, or abolishing its own municipal consti

ment.

the mouths of the Danube, to preserve their neutrality, and the small vessels agreed upon between Russia and the Sultan, with the consent of the other powers, for coast-service in the Black Sea; and with the reservation of a right to give licenses to light vessels of war in the service of foreign legations. On the same day (March 80, 1856), the Czar and the Sultan made a convention, fixing the armament and tonnage of the vessels each might employ for coast-service in the Black Sea. By Article XIV of the great treaty, this latter convention cannot be altered but by consent of the parties to that treaty.] — D.

(a) Wheaton's Hist. Law of Nations, 538-555.

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

of foreign

States for the settle

ment of

Mediation § 73. The approved usage of nations authorizes the 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 of a State. parties, it becomes a just title for the interference of the mediation mediating power.40

dissensions

Treaties of

and guaranty.

Such a title may also grow out of positive compact

[89 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)

Inde

pendence of

the choice of

§ 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.