The Turkish Government August 30 reiterated its decided, unconditional, final, and unchangeable refusal to receive any proposition on behalf of the Greeks. The next day the ambassadors sent the necessary orders to their squadrons, and in attempting to carry out these orders the admirals, much to the regret of the British Government, brought on the battle of Navarino, October 20, 1827.

2. BELGIUM, 1830.

The next European nation that claimed its independence on the ground of the right of revolution was the Belgian.

By a provision of the general European settlement of 1815 Holland and Belgium were united in one kingdom, known as that of the Netherlands, over which was placed the son of the last Stadtholder of Holland, as King William I of the Netherlands.

When the French Revolution of July, 1830, occurred, it spread instantly to the Netherlands. Toward the end of August, 1830, disturbances began, and soon became so serious as to threaten grave complications abroad as well as at home.

King William sent a formal note, dated October 5, to the British Government, identical with notes to Prussia, Austria, and Russia, the four contracting parties to the treaty of 1815, calling on them to restore order, since all were bound "to support the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the actual state of Europe."

Representatives of the four powers, and with them the representative of France, met in London, November 4, 1830, and adopted a protocol: His Majesty the King of the Netherlands having invited the courts of Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia, and Russia, in their quality of powers signatory to the treaties of Paris and Vienna, which constituted the Kingdom of the Netherlands, to deliberate in concert with his Majesty on the best means of putting an end to the troubles which have broken out in his states; and the courts above-named baving experienced, even before receiving this invitation, a warm desire to arrest with the shortest possible delay the disorder and the effusion of blood, have concerted.

This protocol at once set aside the King of the Netherlands, ignoring his exclusive claim to support, and "to deliberate in concert.' Without concerting with or supporting King William, the five powers imposed an immediate armistice on both parties.

Naturally the Belgian rebels then declared themselves independent. With such encouragement their safety was guaranteed almost beyond the possibility of risk. The claim of independence was made November 18, 1830, and was recognized one month later by the powers in their seventh conference, December 20. The representatives of the five powers, whose names were among the most famous in diplomacy-Talleyrand, Lieven, Esterhazy, Palmerston, Bulow-adopted, without the adhesion or even an invitation to be present of the Netherlands minister, a protocol which announced intervention pure and simple, beginning with the abrupt recognition of the revolutionary government: The plenipotentiaries of the five courts, having received the formal adhesion of the Belgian Government to the armistice proposed to it, and which the King of the Netherlands has also accepted, the conference will occupy itself in discussing and concerting the new arrangements most proper to combine the future independence of Belgium with the interests and the security of the other powers, and the preservation of the European equilibrium.

*

The Netherlands minister immediately recorded, December 22, a formal protest, and a reservation of King William's right to decide on "such ulterior measures as should be taken in the double interests of his own dignity and the well-being of his faithful subjects."

A few days later, January 4, 1831, Holland entered a still more

formal protest. In this strong and dignified paper the King's Government pointed out to the five powers the extreme importance of the new precedent they had established in international law.

As King, called to guard the well-being of a fraction of the European population, His Majesty has been deeply concerned to remark that the complications arisen in Europe have appeared so grave that it has been thought proper, as the only remedy, to sanction the results of a revolt which was provoked by no legitimate motive, and thus to compromise the stability of all thrones, the social order of all States, and the happiness, the repose, and the prosperity of all peoples.

Independent of the solidarity established between the different members of the European system, His Majesty, as sovereign of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, has seen in it an attack directed against his rights.

If the treaty of Paris of 1814 placed Belgium at the disposition of the high allies, these, from the moment they fixed the lot of the Belgian provinces, renounced, according to the law of nations, the faculty of returning on their work, and the dissolution of the bonds formed between Holland and Belgium under the sovereignty of the House of Orange Nassau, became placed beyond the sphere of their attributes. The increase of territory assigned to the united provinces of the Netherlands was, moreover, acquired under burdensome conditions, for valuable consideration, requiring the sacrifice of several of their colonies, the expense required to fortify several places of the southern provinces of the Kingdom, and other pecuniary charges.

The conference assembled, it is true, at the request of the King, but that circumstance did not confer on the conference the right to give its protocols a direction at variance with the object for which its assistance had been asked, and, instead of cooperating in the establishment of order in the Netherlands, to make them tend to the dismemberment of the Kingdom.

Without noticing this protest, the conference proceeded on January 27, 1831, to fix the boundaries and other conditions of the new State. The Belgians, on the 4th of June, elected a king who was instantly recognized by the powers. On the 26th of June the conference adopted another series of eighteen articles. The King of Holland replied, July 12, that these new articles were very important changes, wholly in the interests of Belgium and to the injury of Holland.

The Belgians meanwhile continued to organize their Government on a basis, diplomatic and territorial, that assumed in their favor all the points in dispute. The King of Holland, therefore, put an end to the armistice and marching forward routed the Belgian forces, August 11, and moved on Brussels. Belgium was then at his mercy. The King of the Belgians meanwhile wrote directly to the King of France requesting the immediate succor of a corps of French troops, and without waitng for concert with other powers the French Government marched 40,000 men across the frontier. (Granville to Palmerston, August 4, 1831. British State Papers, 1833.)

Thus within less than a year, after rebellion had broken out and without waiting for evidence of the right or the military force of the insurrection, every sort of intervention took place-diplomatic and military, joint and separate. Nor did the intervention stop with the measures taken for the succor of Belgium. As King William of Holland continued to reject the conditions imposed by the powers and held Antwerp as a pledge for more favorable conditions of peace, the Governments of France and England, abandoning the European concert, announced that they should put their naval and military forces in motion, and accordingly the British Govervment, November, 1832, embargoed Dutch ships and blockaded the Dutch coast, while the French army, November 14, formally laid siege to Antwerp.

3. POLAND, 1831.

While the Belgian revolution was going on a rebellion broke out in the ancient Kingdom of Poland, and on January 25, 1831, the Polish Diet declared the Czar Nicholas no longer King of Poland, and elected

a regency of five members, with Prince Adam George Czartoriski at its head.

The Czar instantly gave notice to the minister of the new French King, Louis Philippe, that he would tolerate no intervention in Poland. Louis Philippe, who owed his own crown to the right of revolution, was the only sovereign in Europe who could be supposed likely to interpose; but, for the moment, his interest in France and Belgium absorbed all his energy. Much popular sympathy was felt for the Poles, and Lafayette, then near the end of his life, founded a Polish committee, and raised money for their assistance. Before the question could → acquire diplomatic importance by establishing a claim founded on the power of the rebels to maintain themselves, the Russian armies crushed the rebellion, and on September 8 regained possession of Warsaw. The entire struggle lasted barely nine months, and from the first its result was universally regarded as inevitable, or in the highest degree unpromising to the success of the revolution. As a diplomatic precedent, it seems to have no value, except as far as it offered an example of the power of Russia as the Belgian insurrection had shown the power of England and France when in union.

4. HUNGARY, 1849.

The next European people who claimed recognition as an independent member of the family of nations seems to have been the Hungarians. On the 14th of April, 1849, the Hungarian Diet formally declared Hungary an independent State, and the Hapsburg dynasty forever deposed from the throne. The next day the Diet elected Louis Kossuth provisional president.

In regard to history, geographical importance, population, and military resources, this people had no occasion to excuse or explain their claims or their rights. Hungary was not a new country. Its government existed from time immemorial, and its right to change its sovereign was as complete as that of England or of France. The provisional government had nearly 150,000 men in arms at that moment. The Austrian Emperor could hardly dispose of a larger force for the purpose of conquest.

The young Emperor (Francis Joseph) instantly appealed for aid to the Czar (Nicholas) of Russia, who instantly intervened. The Czar issued a manifesto April 27, stating the facts and the grounds on which his intervention was believed to be legitimate. This paper founded the right of intervention, not on the weakness of the belligerent, but on his strength. Russia asserted as a principle that she must intervene because if she did not intervene Hungary would establish her independence:

*

#

The insurrection in Hungary [began the manifesto of April 27, 1849] has of late made so much progress that Russia can not possibly remain inactive. Such a state of things endangers our dearest interests, and prudence compels us to anticipate the difficulties it prepares for us. The Austrian Government being for the moment unable to oppose a sufficient power to the insurgents, it has formally requested His Majesty the Emperor (Nicholas) to assist in the repression of a rebellion which endangers the tranquillity of the two Empires. It was but natural that the two cabinets should understand one another on this point of common interest, and our troops have consequently advanced into Galicia to cooperate with Austria against the Hungarian rebellion. We trust the Governments that are equally interested in the maintenance of tranquillity will not misunderstand our motives of action. The Emperor (Nicholas) is sorry to quit the passive and expectant position which he has hitherto maintained, but still he remains faithful to the spirit of his former declarations, for, in granting to every State the right to arrange its own political constitution according to its own mind and refraining from interfering with

any alterations of their form of government which such States might think proper to make, His Majesty reserved to himself his full liberty of action in case the reac tion of revolutions near him should tend to endanger his own safety or the political equilibrium on the frontiers of his Empire.1

This precedent tended to establish the right of every Government to intervene in the affairs of foreign States whenever their situation should "tend to endanger its own safety or the political equilibrium on its frontier." As far as is known, every other Government in the world tacitly acquiesced in the establishment of this precedent.

If any Government recorded a protest, it was that of the United States, but even the United States protested only by inference from the acts and language of the President. On March 4, 1849, the administration of President Taylor began, and the Russian intervention in Hungary took place a few weeks aftewards, before the new President had time to consult other Governments in regard to possible action in European affairs. Without alliance or consultation, President Taylor instantly appointed an agent to inquire into the situation in Hungary. Secretary Clayton signed his instructions June 18, 1849, six weeks after the Russian troops had been ordered to enter Hungary. The language of these instructions was as emphatic and as decisive as that of the Czar's circular:

Should the new government prove to be, in your opinion, firm and stable,

you might intimate, if you should see fit, that the President would, in that event, be gratified to receive a diplomatic agent from Hungary to the United States by or before the next meeting of Congress, and that he entertains no doubt whatever that, in case her new government should prove to be firm and stable, her independence would be speedily recognized by that enlightened body.

The Russian intervention brought the Hungarian war so quickly to an end that before October all resistance was over, and when Congress met, early in December, 1849, President Taylor's annual messagé could only proclaim what would have been American policy:

During the late conflict beween Austria and Hungary there seemed to be a prospect that the latter might become an independent nation. However faint that prospect at the time appeared, I thought it my duty, in accordance with the general sentiment of the American people, who deeply sympathized with the Magyar patriots, to stand prepared upon the contingency of the establishment by her of a permanent government, to be the first to welcome independent Hungary into the family of nations. For this purpose I invested an agent, then in Europe, with power to declare our willingness promptly to recognize her independence in the event of her ability to sustain it. The powerful intervention of Russia in the contest extinguished the hopes of the struggling Magyars.

*

To this paragraph, and to some expressions in the instructions, the Austrian minister was ordered to take exception. He protested accordingly. Daniel Webster had then become Secretary of State, and replied to the protest in a paper known as the Hulsemann letter, in which he declared what he believed to be the American policy and the law in regard to new nationalities claiming recognition:

Of course, questions of prudence naturally arise in reference to new States brought by successful revolutions into the family of nations; but it is not to be required of neutral powers that they should await the recognition of the new government by the parent State. No principle of public law has been more frequently acted upon within the last thirty years by the great powers of the world than this. Within that period eight or ten new States have established independent Governments within the limits of the colonial dominions of Spain on this continent, and in Europe the same thing has been done by Belgium and Greece. The existence of all these Governments was recognized by some of the leading powers of Europe, as well as by the United States, before it was acknowledged by the States from which they had separated themselves. If, therefore, the United States had gone so far as formally

'Annual Register, 1849, p. 333.

to acknowledge the independence of Hungary, although, as the event has proved, it would have been a precipitate step, and one from which no benefit would have resulted to either party, it would not, nevertheless, have been an act against the law of nations, provided they took no part in her contest with Austria.

Secretary Webster's view of the rights of intervention did not cover ground so wide as that taken by the Czar in his circular of April, 1849, but the attitude of President Taylor seems to have been intended as a counteraction, or a protest, as far as the influence of America extended, not so much to the claims of right or law asserted by the Czar, as to the object of his intervention. The instructions of June 18, 1849, expressly said that Russia "has chosen to assume an attitude of interference, and her immense preparations for invading and reducing the Hungarians to the rule of Austria, from which they desire to be released, gave so serious a character to the contest as to awaken the most painful solicitude in the minds of Americans."

Thus, on both sides the right to intervene, both for and against the Hungarians seems to have been claimed and not expressly denied by either; and no other power appears to have offered even so much opposition as was shown by President Taylor to the principles or to the acts of Russia, which settled the course of history.

5. STATES OF THE CHURCH, 1850.

Besides the four precedents of Greece, Belgium, Poland, and Hungary, where new nationalities were in question, a much larger number of interventions occurred in Europe in the process of disruption or consolidation which has, on one hand, disintegrated the ancient empires of the Sultan, of Spain, of the Church; and on the other, concentrated the new systems of Germany, Russia, and Italy.

Interventions have occurred most conspicuously in Spain, by France, in 1823; in Portugal, by England, in 1827; again in Spain and Portugal in 1836, by England and France, under what was called the quadruple treaty; in Piedmont and Naples, by the Holy Alliance, in 1821; and in so many instances since 1848 that the mere enumeration would be long and difficult; but none of the disturbed countries claimed permanent independence under a form of revolution, unless it were perhaps the States of the Church, or Rome, which, on February 8, 1849, declared the Pope to be deposed, and set up a provisional government under a revolutionary triumvirate. The National Assembly of France, which was then a Republic, hastened to adopt, March 31, 1849, a resolution that if, "in order better to safeguard the interests and honor of France, the Executive should think proper to support its negotiations by a partial and temporary occupation in Italy, it would find in the assembly the most entire agreement." The assembly doubtless intended to intervene in Italy in order to protect the revolutionary movement there from the threatened intervention of Austria. The French Executive, Louis Napoleon, gave another direction to the policy of France. He immediately sent a French army to Civita Vecchia, which landed there April 26, and after a bloody struggle drove the republican government out of Rome. The French entered Rome July 3. Pope Pius IX returned there in April, 1850, and during the next twenty years Rome remained under the occupation of a French army.

The only reason given by France, in this instance, for intervention was that the occupation of Rome was necessary in order to "maintain the political influence of France." This was the ground taken by President Louis Napoleon in explaining his course to the Chambers in 1850.

S. Doc. 231, pt 7-4