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. Rey. 1860, p. 215.

See also last page of this volume.

the indirect and direct Intervention of subjects of a neutral State in a war.

During the recent civil war in the United States of North America, in which England observed a strict neutrality, the principles of International Law, which England had for a long period of time upholden and enforced when belligerent, were put to a severe trial. Several grave questions of International Law were raised and discussed during this great civil war. Among them were thefollowing :-(1.) The RECOGNITION of revolted States as de facto Governments by a neutral Power. All the neutral States recognized the Southern Confederacy as a de facto Government, so far as belligerent rights and neutral obligations were concerned. But they did not accredit diplomatic agents to this de facto Government. It would have been perfectly competent to them to have done so without any breach of neutral duty (e), and indeed if any precedent for such a step had been wanting, it would have been found in the conduct of the United States, who had always exercised their right, both of recognizing without delay as de facto Governments the Colonies in America which had revolted from European kingdoms, and of sending diplomatic representatives to them. President Grant, in his mes

(e) More especially as the greatest conflict of opinion prevailed amongst the highest American authorities on the vital point of the liberty of a State to separate herself from the Union.

1860. President Buchanan asserts that Congress has no power to coerce a State which wishes to withdraw from the Union.-Ann. Reg. p. 283.

1865. President Johnson: "It is not one of the rights of any State Government to renounce its own place in the Union.”—Ann. Reg. p. 293. 1867. President Johnson: "Candour compels me to declare, there is no Union as our fathers understood the term."-Ann. Reg. p. 291.

66

แ

sage to Congress, 1869, said: "The people and Go"vernment of the United States entertain the same warm feelings and sympathies for the people of Cuba, in their pending struggle, that they mani"fested throughout the previous struggles between Spain and her former colonies in behalf of the "latter. But the contest has at no time assumed "the conditions which amount to a war in the sense "of International Law, or which would show the "existence of a de facto political organization of "the insurgents, sufficient to justify a recognition of belligerency.

แ

"The principle is maintained, however, that this "nation is its own judge when to accord the rights "of belligerency, either to a people struggling to "free themselves from a Government they believe to "be oppressive, or to independent nations at war "with each other" (ƒ).

ENVOY on board a
This is a subject

(2.) The INVIOLABILITY OF AN neutral ship on the high seas (g). which, whatever doubt might once have existed respecting it, must now be considered as settled in the affirmative by the consent of all civilized nations. (3.) As to BLOCKADE and CONTRABAND, the rights of the belligerent and the obligations of a neutral with respect to them were fully enforced, though the blockade was on a most gigantic scale, pressed most severely upon neutral commerce, and inflicted especial distress upon the manufacturing population of England.

X. (4.) There remains one question of the

(f) Ann. Reg. 1869, pp. 305, 306.

(g) See vol. ii. pt. vi. ch. ii. as to Ambassadors generally.

gravest importance, namely, the RESPONSIBILITY OF A STATE FOR (h) THE ACTS OF HER CITIZENS, involving the duty of a neutral to prevent armaments and ships of war issuing from her shores for the service of a belligerent, though such armaments were furnished and ships were equipped, built, and sent without the knowledge, and contrary to the orders, of her Government.

The question to what extent the State is responsible for the private acts of its subjects (civitasne deliquerit an cives?) is one of the most important and interesting parts of the law which governs the relations of independent States. The subject is discussed in these volumes, but the following propositions may be recapitulated here.

It is a maxim of general law, that so far as foreign States are concerned, the will of the subject must be considered as bound up in that of his Sovereign.

It is also a maxim that each State has a right to expect from another the observance of international obligations, without regard to what may be the municipal means which it possesses for enforcing this ob

servance.

The act of an individual citizen, or of a small number of citizens, is not to be imputed without clear proof to the Government of which they are subjects.

A Government may by knowledge and sufferance, as well as by direct permission, become responsible for the acts of subjects whom it does not prevent from the commission of an injury to a foreign State.

A Government is presumed to be able to restrain the subject within its territory from contravening

(h) Pt. iv. ch. i. of this volume.