opposed to the Portuguese Constitution, was in direct violation of repeated solemn assurances of the Spanish cabinet to the British

be free to adopt what institutions they pleased, in case of successful rebellion, or of peaceful separation from their parent States. (See Mr. Seward's correspondence respecting Mexico, from 1862 to 1866, as illustrative of the position of the United States at the present time on this subject, given at length in note 41 to § 76 infrà).

As a summary of this subject, it would seem that the following positions may be safely taken: I. The declarations upon which Mr. Monroe consulted Mr. Jefferson and his own Cabinet related to the interposition of European powers in the affairs of American States. II. The kind of interposition declared against was that which may be made for the purpose of controlling their political affairs, or of extending to this hemisphere the system in operation upon the continent of Europe, by which the great powers exercise a control over the affairs of other European States. III. The declarations do not intimate any course of conduct to be pursued in case of such interpositions, but merely say that they would be "considered as dangerous to our peace and safety," and as "the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States," which it would be impossible for us to "behold with indifference;" thus leaving the nation to act at all times as its opinion of its policy or duty might require. IV. The declarations are only the opinion of the administration of 1823, and have acquired no legal force or sanction. V. The United States has never made any alliance with, or pledge to, any other American State on the subject covered by the declarations. VI. The declaration respecting non-colonization was on a subject distinct from European intervention with American States, and related to the acquisition of sovereign title by any European power, by new and original occupation or colonization thereafter. hatever were the political motives for resisting such colonization, the principle of public law upon which it was placed was, that the continent must be considered as already within the occupation and jurisdiction of independent civilized nations.

On this subject, the reader is referred to the following authorities:- Mr. Adams to Mr. Rush, July 2, 1823; Mr. Monroe's message, Dec. 2, 1823; Mr. Rush's Memoranda of Residence at the Court of London; Stapleton's Life of Canning; Briefwechsel zwischen Varnhagen von Ense und Oelsner, vol. iii.; Mr. Clay's resolution, offered Jan. 20, 1824; the ukase of the Emperor Alexander, Sept. 4, 1821; the treaty between the United States and Spain, 22 February, 1819; the Nootka-Sound Convention between Spain and Great Britain of 28 October, 1790; Mr. Monroe's annual message, Dec. 7, 1824; Mr. Adams's messages of Dec. 26, 1825, and March 26, 1826; Mr. Clay's despatch to Mr. Poinsett, March 25, 1825; Mr. Webster's speech on the Panama mission, Webster's Works, iii. 178; Mr. Everett's speech on the same, Cong. Debates, 1826; Mr. Calhoun's speech on the Yucatan question, Calhoun's Works, iv. 454; Mr. Polk's annual message of Dec. 2, 1845; his special message on Yucatan, of April 29, 1848; the debate in the Senate on the Yucatan question, April and May, 1848, Congress. Globe, 1848, p. 712 et seq.; the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, United-States Laws, x. 995; Debates in the United-States Senate on the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, 1855-56, Congress. Globe and Appendix for 1st Sess. 34th Cong.; North-American Review, 1856, p. 478; Mr. Everett's letter of Sept. 2, 1863, on the Monroe Doctrine, in the New-York Ledger; Letter of J. Q. Adams on the same, to the Rev. Dr. Channing, of Aug. 11, 1837; Mr. Canning's speech of Dec. 12, 1826; Mr. Buchanan's article on the Monroe Doctrine, in his History of his Administration, p. 276.] — D.

government, engaging to abstain from such interference. The sole object of Great Britain was to obtain the faithful execution of those engagements. The former case of the invasion of Spain by France, having for its object to overturn the Spanish Constitution, was essentially different in its circumstances. France had given to Great Britain cause of war by that aggression upon the independence of Spain. The British government might lawfully have interfered, on grounds of political expediency; but they were not bound to interfere, as they were now bound to interfere on behalf of Portugal, by the obligations of treaty. War might have been their free choice, if they had deemed it politic, in the case of Spain; interference on behalf of Portugal was their duty, unless they were prepared to abandon the principles of national faith and national honor. (a)

Christian

Greeks.

$69. The interference of the Christian powers of InterferEurope, in favor of the Greeks, who, after enduring ages ence of the of cruel oppression, had shaken off the Ottoman yoke, powers of Europe, in affords a further illustration of the principles of inter- favor of the national law authorizing such an interference, not only where the interests and safety of other powers are immediately affected by the internal transactions of a particular State, but where the general interests of humanity are infringed by the excesses of a barbarous and despotic government. These principles are fully recognized in the treaty for the pacification of Greece, concluded at London, on the 6th of July, 1827, between France, Great Britain, and Russia. The preamble of this treaty sets forth, that the three contracting parties were "penetrated with the necessity of putting an end to the sanguinary contest, which, by delivering up the Greek provinces and the isles of the Archipelago to all the disorders of anarchy, produces daily fresh impediments to the commerce of the European States, and gives occasion to piracies, which not only expose the subjects of the high contracting parties to considerable losses, but, besides, render necessary burdensome measures of protection and repression." It then states that the British and French governments, having received a pressing request from the Greeks to interpose their mediation with the Porte, and being, as well as the Emperor of Russia, animated by the desire of stopping the effusion

(a) Mr. Canning's Speech in the House of Commons, 11th December, 1826. Annual Register, lxviii. 192.

of blood, and of arresting the evils of all kinds which might arise from the continuance of such a state of things, had resolved to unite their efforts, and to regulate the operations thereof by a formal treaty, with the view of re-establishing peace between the contending parties, by means of an arrangement, which was called for as much by humanity as by the interest of the repose of Europe. The treaty then provides, (article 1,) that the three contracting powers should offer their mediation to the Porte, by a joint declaration of their ambassadors at Constantinople; and that there should be made, at the same time, to the two contending parties, the demand of an immediate armistice, as a preliminary condition indispensable to opening any negotiation. Article 2d provides the terms of the arrangement to be made, as to the civil and political condition of Greece, in consequence of the principles of a previous understanding between Great Britain and Russia. By the 3d article it was agreed, that the details of this arrangement, and the limits of the territory to be included under it, should be settled in a separate negotiation between the high contracting powers and the two contending parties. Το this public treaty an additional and secret article was added, stipulating that the high contracting parties would take immediate measures for establishing commercial relations with the Greeks, by sending to them and receiving from them consular agents, so long as there should exist among them authorities capable of maintaining such relations. That if, within the term of one month, the Porte did not accept the proposed armistice, or if the Greeks refused to execute it, the high contracting parties should declare to that one of the two contending parties that should wish to continue hostilities, or to both, if it should become necessary, that the contracting powers intended to exert all the means, which circumstances might suggest to their prudence, to give immediate effect to the armistice, by preventing, as far as might be in their power, all collision between the contending parties. The secret article concluded by declaring, that if these measures did not suffice to induce the Ottoman Porte to adopt the propositions made by the high contracting powers; or if, on the other hand, the Greeks should renounce the conditions stipulated in their favor, the contracting parties would nevertheless continue to prosecute the work of pacification on the basis agreed upon between them; and, in consequence, they author

ized, from that time forward, their representatives in London to discuss and determine the ulterior measures to which it might become necessary to resort.

The Greeks accepted the proffered mediation of the three powers, which the Turks rejected, and instructions were given to the commanders of the allied squadrons to compel the cessation of hostilities. This was effected by the result of the battle of Navarino, with the occupation of the Morea by French troops; and the independence of the Greek State was ultimately recognized by the Ottoman Porte, under the mediation of the contracting powers. If, as some writers have supposed, the Turks belong to a family or set of nations which is not bound by the general international law of Christendom, they have still no right to complain of the measures which the Christian powers thought proper to adopt for the protection of their religious. brethren, oppressed by the Mohammedan rule. In a ruder age, the nations of Europe, impelled by a generous and enthusiastic feeling of sympathy, inundated the plains of Asia to recover the holy sepulchre from the possession of infidels, and to deliver the Christian pilgrims from the merciless oppressions practised by the Saracens. The Protestant princes and States of Europe, during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, did not scruple to confederate and wage war, in order to secure the freedom of religious worship for the votaries of their faith in the bosom of Catholic communities, to whose subjects it was denied. Still more justifiable was the interference of the Christian powers of Europe to rescue a whole nation, not merely from religious persecution, but from the cruel alternative of being transported from their native land, or exterminated by their merciless oppressors. The rights of human nature wantonly outraged by this cruel warfare, prosecuted for six years against a civilized and Christian people, to whose ancestors mankind are so largely indebted for the blessings of arts and of letters, were but tardily and imperfectly vindicated by this measure. "Whatever," as Sir James Mackintosh said, "a nation may lawfully defend for itself, it may defend for another people, if called upon to interpose." The interference of the Christian powers, to put an end to this bloody contest might, therefore, have been safely rested upon this ground alone, without appealing to the interests of commerce and of the repose of Europe, which, as well as the interests of humanity, are

alluded to in the treaty, as the determining motives of the high contracting parties. (a)

Interference of

Austria,

ain, Prussia,

in the inter

§ 70. We have already seen, that the relations which have prevailed between the Ottoman Empire and the other Great Brit- European States have only recently brought the former and Russia, within the pale of that public law by which the latter nal affairs of are governed, and which was originally founded on that the Ottoman community of manners, institutions, and religion, which Empire, in 1840. distinguish the nations of Christendom from those of the Mohammedan world. (a) Yet the integrity and independence of that empire have been considered essential to the general balance of power, ever since the crescent ceased to be an object of dread to the western nations of Europe. The above-mentioned interference of three of the great Christian powers in the affairs of Greece had been complicated, by the separate war between Russia and the Ottoman Empire, which was terminated by the treaty of Adrianople, in 1829, followed by the treaty of alliance between the two empires, of Unkiar-Skelessi, in 1833. The casus fœderis of the latter treaty was brought on by the attempts of Mehemet Ali, Pacha of Egypt, to assert his independence, and of the Porte, which sought to recover its lost provinces. The status quo, which had been established between the Sultan and his vassal by the arrangement of Kutayah, in 1833, under the mediation of France and Great Britain, on which the peace of the Levant depended, and

(a) Another treaty was concluded at London, between the same three powers, on the 7th of May, 1832, by which the election of Prince Otho of Bavaria, as King of Greece, was confirmed, and the sovereignty and independence of the new kingdom guaranteed by the contracting parties, according to the terms of the protocol signed by them on the 3d of February, 1830, and accepted by Greece and the Ottoman Porte.

[37 The treaty of London of Nov. 20, 1852, between Great Britain, Russia, France, Bavaria and Greece, admits the binding force of the article in the Greek Constitution which requires the successors to the throne to profess the religion of the Greek Church. On the abdication of King Otho, in 1862, the Bavarian dynasty was set aside, and the Greeks permitted to elect a successor, though upon the nomination of the three powers who guaranty the independence of Greece, - Great Britain, Russia, and France. After some diplomacy, which very nearly resulted in the abrogation of the self-denying clause of the original treaty, by which no member of the reigning family of those powers should ascend the throne, that agreement was adhered to, and the almost unanimous election of Prince Alfred of England was declined. The choice then fell upon Prince George of Denmark, who accepted the throne. The cession of the Ionian Islands to Greece by Great Britain, with the assent of the parties to the treaties of 1827 and 1832 and of the legislature of the islands, is noticed supra, note 20 to § 35.]-D.

(a) Vide supra, note 8 to § 13.