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.

With respect to the Balance of Power in the North, the Treaty between France, England, and Sweden of the 21st of November, 1855, is expressly founded on the principle of preserving it.

With respect to Naples, it appears that remonstrance having been addressed to the King of that State, upon the injustice practised towards political offenders, upon the general mal-administration of justice in that country, and upon the danger thereby accruing to the Italian peninsula especially, and generally to the peace of Europe, and such remonstrance having been rejected by the King, that England and France have withdrawn, in order to mark their condemnation of his internal policy, their ambassadors from his dominions. Such a proceeding it was certainly competent to them to take, according to the principles laid down in the second volume of this work respecting ambassadors.(t) It furnishes, nevertheless, the strongest example of passive intervention, so to [*ix] speak, in the strictly internal affairs of a Foreign State which the world has yet seen. The facts, however, relating to the whole transaction, are as yet but imperfectly and inauthentically known. It is a curious illustration of the extent to which the doctrine of Religious Intervention(u) may be carried, that, according to some reports, the Persians justified their assault upon Herat on the plea that they intervened to protect their co-religionists of the Semitic Faith.(x)

The origin and causes of the War between England and Persia have not yet been fully stated on competent authority. The War between England and China has recently undergone a full and elaborate discussion in both Houses of Parliament. The House of Lords approved, the House of Commons condemned, the war. The portions of this memorable debate which will chiefly interest the International Lawyer are those which relate to the criteria by which the national character of a merchant vessel is to be ascertained, and to the distinction between Reprisals and War.

The Annexation of the Kingdom of Oude to the British dominions depends for its justification upon the right application of the doctrines laid down in the first volume respecting the Rights of Acquisition (y) and of Intervention,(z) partly also on the Law of Treaties discussed in the second volume.(a)

*IX. The Convention (proposed 14th October, 1854, confirmed [**] 18th of October, 1855) of Nagaski, between England and Japan,

is not an unimportant extension of International relations to a part of the globe from which they have been hitherto practically excluded. By

(t) Vide Vol. II. p. 148.

(x) The Times, November 8, 1856.

(2) Vol. I. Part IV. Ch. I.

(u) Vide ante, Vol. I. p. 470.
(y) Vol. I. Part III. Ch. XII.

(a) See also remarks as to the binding character of International Law between Christian and Heathen civilized States, Vol. I. pp. 22-6.

that Convention, certain ports are open for certain purposes to British ships, and the jurisdiction of British authorities over British subjects in Japanese ports is retained and ships of war, in the necessary performance of their duties, have a general right to enter all the ports of Japan; but, unless compelled by necessity, they, like the merchant ships, are confined to certain ports named in the Convention.(6)

X. The CONDUCT, and still more the CONCLUSION, of the recent War must always be memorable to the historian or the expounder of International Law.

In the former Great Britain waived, (c) in the latter she abandoned, one of the most certain and highly valued Belligerent Rights, namely, the right of confiscating enemies' goods found on board neutral vessels.(d)

The mode of abandoning this right was little less remarkable than the abandonment itself. The abandonment of that Right was not formally incorporated in the provisions of a treaty, but was stated in a Declaration accompanying the Treaty, with the objects of which, however, it had no natural connection.

This anomalous Declaration, whatever may be its binding effect, was signed by most of the European States, but not by the State the most interested, and-next *to Great Britain-the best acquainted with [*xi] the subject-the United States of North America. On the contrary, but a few months afterwards, (e) this State formally declined—as it was perfectly competent to her to do-to sanction the general principle of abandoning Privateering,-that is, of carrying on war by the aid of the individual exertions of the Subject as well as of the Government, unless, indeed, the same Powers would agree to a Treaty securing the free navigation of the sea to all merchant vessels whatsoever.

This is not the place in which the expediency of the abandonment of this great maritime Right of the Belligerent can be fully discussed; but, it may be observed, that a defence which has been put forth, namely, that nations are defeated by fleets and armies, and not by attacks upon their commerce, does not appear either very well founded in history or well supported by reason.

It is obvious that the food and the means which procure the food of your enemy are as valuable to him, to say the least, as his weapons or his ships. It is no less obvious that wars are always shortened, and frequently ended, by the privations of the Subjects of the Belligerent. These privations of the Subjects, the inquiries which they sharpen, and the demands which they beget, are the natural correctives of the ambition and passion of Rulers.

It is, moreover, surely plain, that the Neutral who is the carrier of the commerce of the Belligerent, enables him to convert his commercial into his military marine, and greatly to increase and strengthen the latter.

Nor is it a light objection that a state of things is produced, in which

(b) Correspondence respecting the late negotiations with Japan, laid before Parliament, 1856.

(c) Vide pp. 292, 293, and Pt. IX. Ch. X. of this volume.

(d) Vide p. 294 of this volume.

(e) August, 1856.

the Governments of States are at war *while their subjects are [*xii] at peace. Lately, indeed, it has been suggested at public meetings, that the commerce of Belligerents should continue to be carried on in War as in Peace; that being the condition on which the United States of North America offer to abandon the right of Privateering. Let it, however, be remembered, that to redress a present injury, to take security against a future transgression, are the only legitimate causes of war: and that in such cases, "toto certatum est corpore regni." The continuance of commercial intercourse between the subjects of the offended and the offending nations is, as a matter of Public Law, utterly destructive of the first notion of allegiance on the part of subjects to their respective sovereigns: and as a matter of International Law, the proposition that the will of the subject is, so far as other States are concerned, bound up in the will of his government, is a proposition of the most vital importance to the due administration of International Law, and to the peace of the world. After all, the question is whether the tendency of these exemptions is not to prolong hostilities, to protract the horrors of war: are they not, in truth, devices for making war perpetual rather than real mitigations of its attendant calamities?

"If we were to go to war with the United States of North America it would not much matter, we could carry on our trade all the same,” was the language of a merchant to the author when this fundamental change in the principles of Public and International Law was proposed. Such a remark bore true testimony to the fact that, by this fundamental change, one great check imposed by Providence upon the hasty beginning of this terrible scourge is removed; and the same observation applies, with at least equal force, to its continuance. How many *wars [*xiii] have been, in fact, ended by the sufferings which their duration inflicted upon the subjects of the Belligerents? or rather, who, looking back into history, can fix a probable period of termination to many wars kindled by the passions of Nations or of their Governors, if the commerce of the Belligerents had remained unaffected? or if the famous, but perhaps legendary, precedent of the two Dutch admirals-who, commanding antagonist fleets, sold powder to each other, and, most commercially, contributed to their own destruction-had been generally followed?

XI. The important International questions of the Sound Dues levied by the Crown of Denmark, have been the subject of several State Papers, and are now under the consideration of the Governments of all civilized

States.(f)

Those who are interested in the progress of International Justice, may look with satisfaction upon the general state of feeling and usage throughout the civilized world upon the much vexed question of Foreign Enlistment.(g) There is no International subject perhaps in which, during the last thirty years, so decided an improvement has taken place. The

(f) Vol. I. pp. 201, 217.

See Papers and Report of Committee laid before Parliament on this subject in

(9) See this volume, p. 209, &c., and Vol. I. pp. 397, 398, Appendix, pp. 504-14.

axiom that to enlist foreign soldiers without the consent of their Governments is a grave breach of the Right of States, is now, it may be reasonably hoped, firmly incorporated into the Code of International Law. XII. The writer of these pages is anxious to acknowledge [*xiv] *the service which he has derived from the works of his own countrymen and from those of the United States of North America in the compilation of this volume. To the works of Ward, of Manning, of Wheaton, and Story, (h) he is under great obligations. To various writers on the European continent, and especially to the learned Pfeiffer, his acknowledgments are also due. He also desires to draw attention to the Spanish works of Abreu and Pando, particularly of the latter, with the contents of which he became acquainted, for the first time, during the preparation of the present volume for the press. An excellent essay by Mr. Hurd, an American jurist, on "Topics of Jurisprudence connected with Conditions of Freedom and Bondage," a sketch by M. van Hogendorp, a Dutch jurist, of the Dutch School of Jurisprudence founded by Grotius, some pamphlets on Maritime International Law, by Professor Wurm of Hamburg, and a new edition of Wheaton's "Elements of International Law" by Mr. Lawrence, a new edition by M. Demangeat of the "Droit International Privé" by M. Fœlix, must be hailed as valuable recent accessions to the library of the International Jurist.

(h) I have acknowledged, p. 518, note (k), the kindness of Dr. Pratt, which has enabled me to incorporate a great part of his useful edition of "Story on Prize" into the present volume.