still stronger demonstration to that effect. If, therefore, the recent order in council was objected to on the ground that it identified Great Britain with the cause of the existing government of Spain, the answer was, that, by the additional articles of the quadruple treaty, that identification had already been established, and that one of those articles went even beyond the measure which had been impugned. 2. As to what had been alleged as to the danger of establishing a precedent for the interference of other countries, he would merely observe, that in the first place this interference was founded on a treaty arising out of the acknowledged right of succession of a sovereign, decided by the legitimate authorities of the country over which she ruled. In the case of a civil war proceeding either from a disputed succession, or from a prolonged revolt, no writer on international law denied that other countries had a right, if they chose to exercise it, to take part with either of the two belligerent parties. Undoubtedly it was inexpedient to exercise that right except under circumstances of a peculiar nature. That right, however, was general. If one country exercised it, another might equally exercise it. One State might support one party, another the other party: and whoever embarked in either cause must do so with their eyes open to the full extent of the possible consequences of their decision. He contended, therefore, that the measure under consideration established no new principle, and that it created no danger as a precedent. Every case must be judged by the considerations of prudence which belonged to it. The present case, therefore, must be judged by similar considerations. All that he maintained. was, that the recent proceeding did not go beyond the spirit of the engagement into which Great Britain had entered, that it did not establish any new principle, and that the engagement was quite consistent with the law of nations (ƒ). § 76a. In 1861, there occurred a remarkable intervention in the affairs of Intervention (ƒ) Wheaton's Hist. Law of Nations, pp. 523-538. in Mexico in 1861. $ 76b. Intervention between Mexico, which is thus described in the Queen's Speech on the opening of Parliament: "The wrongs committed by various parties and by successive governments in Mexico upon foreigners resident within Mexican territory, and for which no satisfactory redress could be obtained, have led to the conclusion of a convention between Her Majesty, the Emperor of the French, and the Queen of Spain, for the purpose of regulating a combined operation on the coast of Mexico, with a view to obtain that redress which has hitherto been withheld" (g). The contracting powers "engaged not to seek for themselves, in the employment of the contemplated coercive measures, any acquisition of territory, or any special advantage, nor to exercise in the internal affairs of Mexico any influence of a nature to prejudice the right of the Mexican nation to choose and constitute the form of its government" (h). The main reason for this intervention was to obtain the payment of debts contracted by the Mexican government. The amount due to England was very large, while that owing to France was comparatively small, yet the Emperor Napoleon thought fit to go much further than simply obtaining satisfaction for the claims of France. He set up the unfortunate Maximilian as Emperor of Mexico, and then, withdrawing the French troops, left him to maintain his throne by his own resources, and to be finally murdered by the subjects upon whom he had been forced. England and Spain refused to assist France in these proceedings, and withdrew from the intervention when their claims had been satisfied. The United States were invited to join the allies, but declined, and it subsequently appeared that France was desirous of setting up a powerful Latin State on the continent of America in opposition to the United States (i). It is fortunate that England has not since followed this precedent, and intervened in all cases where States have made default in paying debts due to British subjects. It was unjustifiable in the case of Mexico, and would be not only unjustifiable but impossible at the present time from the course such commercial transactions have taken, and the number of defaulting States. M. Calvo justly says that this intervention "constitue pour les puissances qui s'y sont laissé entraîner un précédent aussi peu digne d'éloges que funeste à leur considération et à leurs interêts "(k). But it should be remembered that the British demands included a claim for redress on account of the breaking into the house of the British Legation on 16th November, 1860, and the removal thence of 152,000l. sterling bonds, and on account of the murder of a British subject on 3rd April, 1859 (7). The intervention of the Great Powers between Turkey and Greece (g) [Annual Register, 1862, p. 5.] (k) [Droit International, bk. iii. § 191. The view of the United States will be found stated in Wharton's Dig. §§ 58, 318.] () [Wharton's Dig. p. 312.1 in 1886, when they enforced their will on the latter country by a Turkey and pacific blockade, has already been noticed (m). Greece, 1886. $ 76c. The French The maintenance of a French garrison in Rome was an altogether anomalous proceeding. In 1856, the Emperor Napoleon occupied garrison in Rome. His troops were kept there on the ground that the Pope Rome. required to be protected in the exercise of his spiritual functions as head of the Catholic Church. The garrison was partly withdrawn in 1864 (n), but returned in 1868, owing to the aggressive attitude of the revolutionary party in Italy, and the invasion of the Papal States by Garibaldi. However, on the 19th of August, 1870, the French troops evacuated Rome, and what was left of the Papal States was afterwards incorporated into the kingdom of Italy, leaving the Pope nothing but the Vatican (o). But it was not until 1874 that the last trace of the French occupation disappeared from Rome. Up to that date the Orenoque, a French ship of war, was moored off Civita Vecchia, ostensibly to assist the Pope should he be in difficulties, and she was not removed until the 12th of October in that year (p). (m) [$70k, ante.] (n) [Hertslet, Map of Europe, vol. ii. p. 1627.] (0) [Ibid., p. 1628.] (p) [Annual Register, 1874, p. 193.] CHAPTER II. RIGHTS OF CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LEGISLATION. $ 77. Exclusive power of civil legislation. EVERY independent State is entitled to the exclusive power of legislation, in respect to the personal rights and civil state and condition of its citizens, and in respect to all real and personal property situated within its territory, whether belonging to citizens or aliens. But as it often happens that an individual possesses real property in a State other than that of his domicile, or that contracts are entered into and testaments executed by him, or that he is interested in successions ab intestato, in a country different from either; it may happen that he is, at the same time, subject to two or three sovereign powers; to that of his native country or of his domicile, to that of the place where the property in question is situated, and to that of the place where the contracts have been made or the acts executed. The allegiance to the sovereign power of his native country exists from the birth of the individual, and continues till a change of nationality. In the two other cases he is considered subject to the laws, but only in a limited sense. In the foreign countries where he possesses real property, he is considered a nonresident landowner (sujet forain); in those in which the contracts are entered into, a temporary resident (sujet passager). As, in general, each of these different countries is governed by a distinct legislation, conflicts between their laws often arise; that is to say, it is frequently a question which system of laws is applicable to the case. Private inter- The collection of rules for determining the conflicts between the civil and criminal laws of different States, is called private international law, to distinguish it from national law. public international law, which regulates the relations of States (a). laws. § 78. The first general principle on this subject results imme- Conflict of diately from the fact of the independence of nations. Every nation possesses and exercises exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction throughout the full extent of its territory. It follows, from this principle, that the laws of every State control, of right, all the real and personal property within its territory, as well as the inhabitants of the territory, whether born there or not, and that they affect and regulate all the acts done, or contracts entered into within its limits. Consequently, "every State possesses the power of regulating the conditions on which the real or personal property, within its territory, may be held or transmitted; and of determining the state and capacity of all persons therein, as well as the validity of the contracts and other acts which arise there, and the rights and obligations which result from them; and, finally, of prescribing the conditions on which suits at law may be commenced and carried on within its territory "(b). The second general principle is, "that no State can, by its laws, directly affect, bind, or regulate property beyond its own territory, or control persons who do not reside within it, whether they be native-born subjects or not. This is a consequence of the first general principle; a different system, which would recognize in each State the power of regulating persons or things beyond its territory, would exclude the equality of rights among different States, and the exclusive sovereignty which belongs to each of them" (c). From the two principles, which have been stated, it follows that all the effect, which foreign laws can have in the territory of a State, depends absolutely on the express or tacit consent of that State. A State is not obliged (a) Fœlix, Droit International Privé, § 3. [Story, Conflict of Laws, §§ 9, 10, 11. Kent, Comm. vol. ii. p. 39. Westlake, § 1.] § 9. (6) Fœlix, Droit International Privé, (c) Ibid. § 10. |