governments, the choice of the chief or other magistrates ought to be freely made, in the manner prescribed by the constitution of the State, without the intervention of any foreign influence or authority. (a)

ing out of

tervention.

§ 75. The only exceptions to the application of these Excepgeneral rules arise out of compact, such as treaties of tions growalliance, guarantee, and mediation, to which the State compact or other just itself whose concerns are in question has become a party; right of inor formed by other powers in the exercise of a supposed right of intervention growing out of a necessity involving their own particular security, or some contingent danger affecting the general security of nations. Such, among others, were the wars relating to the Spanish. succession, in the beginning of the eighteenth century, and to the Bavarian and Austrian successions, in the latter part of the same century. The history of modern Europe also affords many other examples of the actual interference of foreign powers in the choice of the sovereign or chief magistrate of those States where the choice was constitutionally determined by popular election, or by an elective council, such as in the cases of the head of the Germanic Empire, the King of Poland, and the Roman Pontiff; but in these cases no argument can be drawn from the fact to the right. In the particular case, however, of the election of the Pope, who is the supreme pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church, as well as a temporal sovereign, the Emperor of Austria, and the Kings of France and Spain have, by ancient usage, each a right to exclude one candidate. (a)

Quadruple

1834 be

ain, Portu

§ 76. The quadruple alliance, concluded in 1834 between France, Great Britain, Spain, and Portugal, affords alliance of a remarkable example of actual interference in the ques- tween France, tions relating to the succession to the crown in the two Great Britlatter kingdoms, growing out of compacts to which they gal, and were parties, formed in the exercise of a supposed right of Spain. interference for the preservation of the peace of the Peninsula as well as the general peace of Europe. Having already stated in another work the historical circumstances which gave rise to the quadruple alliance, as well as its terms and conditions, it will only be necessary here to recapitulate the leading principles, which

(a) Vattel, Droit des Gens, liv. i. ch. 5, §§ 66, 67.

(a) Klüber, Droit des Gens Moderne de l'Europe, Part. II. tit. 1, ch. 2, § 48.

may be collected from the debate in the British Parliament, in 1835, upon the measures adopted by the British government to carry into effect the stipulations of the treaty.

1. The legality of the order in council permitting British subjects to engage in the military service of the Queen of Spain, by exempting them from the general operation of the act of Parliament of 1819, forbidding them from enlisting in foreign military service, was not called in question by Sir Robert Peel and the other speakers on the part of the opposition. Nor was the obligation of the treaty of quadruple alliance, by which the British government was bound to furnish arms and the aid of a naval force to the Queen of Spain, denied by them. Yet it was asserted, that without a declaration of war, it would be with the greatest difficulty that the special obligation of giving naval aid could be fulfilled, without placing the force of such a compact in opposition to the general binding nature of international law. Whatever might be the special obligation imposed on Great Britain by the treaty, it could not warrant her in preventing a neutral State from receiving a supply of arms. She had no right, without a positive declaration of war, to stop the ships of a neutral country on the high seas.

2. It was contended that the suspension of the foreign enlistment law was equivalent to a direct military interference in the domestic affairs of another nation. The general rule on which Great Britain had hitherto acted was that of non-interference. The only exceptions admitted to this rule were cases where the necessity was urgent and immediate; affecting, either on account of vicinage, or some special circumstances, the safety or vital interests of the State. To interfere on the vague ground that British interests would be promoted by the intervention, on the plea that it would be for their advantage to see established a particular form of government in Spain, would be to destroy altogether the general rule of non-intervention, and to place the independence of every weak power at the mercy of its formidable neighbors. It was impossible to deny that an act which the British government permitted, authorizing British soldiers and subjects to enlist in the service of a foreign power, and allowing them to be organized in Great Britain, was a recognition of the doctrine of the propriety of assisting by a military force a foreign government against an insurrection of its own subjects. When

the Foreign Enlistment Bill was under consideration in the House of Commons, the particular clause which empowered the king in council to suspend its operation was objected to on the ground, that if there was no foreign enlistment act, the subjects of Great Britain might volunteer in the service of another country, and there could be no particular ground of complaint against them; but that if the king in council were permitted to issue an order suspending the law with reference to any belligerent nation, the government might be considered as sending a force under its own control.

Lord Palmerston, in reply, stated:—1. That the object of the treaty of quadruple alliance, as expressed in the preamble, was to establish internal peace throughout the Peninsula, including Spain as well as Portugal; the means by which it was proposed to effect that object was the expulsion of the infants Don Carlos and Dom Miguel from Portugal. When Don Carlos returned to Spain, it was thought necessary to frame additional articles to the treaty in order to meet the new emergency. One of these additional articles engaged His Britannic Majesty to furnish Her Catholic Majesty with such supplies of arms and warlike stores as Her Majesty might require, and further to assist Her Majesty with a naval force. The writers on the law of nations all agreed that any government, thus stipulating to furnish arms to another, must be considered as taking an active part in any contest in which the latter might be engaged; and the agreement to furnish a naval force, if necessary, was a 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. (a)41

(a) Wheaton's Hist. Law of Nations, 523-538.

[41 Intervention in Mexico. Recognition of the Empire. The intervention by France, Spain, and Great Britain in the affairs of Mexico, presents a striking instance of the practice of the European powers in such cases, and will contribute a precedent to international law, at least as against the parties concerned.

A convention was made at London, on the 31st October, 1861, between Great Britain, France, and Spain, professedly for the purpose of obtaining redress and security from Mexico for citizens of the contracting powers. The claim was declared to be, that bonds of the Mexican Government were held by citizens of those countries, for which the Mexican Government had neglected to provide payment, and which it was doubtful if Mexico had either the ability or willingness to pay. Injuries, it was declared, had been inflicted on citizens of those countries residing in Mexico, in their persons and property, by powers in possession of the government, for which no redress could be obtained. In general, the object of the convention was defined to be, "to demand more efficacious protection for the persons and property of their subjects, as well as a fulfilment of the obligations contracted towards their Majesties." The second article of the convention declares that the contracting parties “engage 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." The convention provided for such occupation of territory and "such other operations" as should be judged suitable to secure its objects.

It is clear that this convention authorized a war of conquest upon Mexico, with no limitation except such as might be afforded by the agreement of the allies to leave the conquered people free to choose and constitute their own form of government. The payment of debts might, indeed, be obtained from the existing government; but the other object-permanent protection for the persons and property of resident foreigners-could, in the opinion of the parties to the convention, be secured only by a change

of government. The second article, therefore, assumed that there would be such a change, and declared only that it should be effected by the Mexicans themselves. The convention may, therefore, be said to have contemplated an armed occupation of Mexico, until the people should have adopted such a government as, in the opinion of the allies, would be responsible and stable.

Provision was made in the treaty for the accession of the United States, as a fourth party; but it was to become a party to a treaty the terms of which the other parties had already settled, and even after its execution had been begun. The note from the three powers, inviting the United States to join, was dated a month after the date of the treaty. The United States were sensitive to the intervention of European monarchies in the internal affairs of a neighboring republic on the American continent; and the Secretary of State, Mr. Seward, endeavored to remove the more definite and specific occasion for the enterprise by an arrangement with Mexico, by which the United States should give her such aid as would enable her to discharge the just pecuniary demands of the three powers. The United-States Minister at Mexico was authorized by the President to make a treaty to that effect. In Mr. Seward's reply (bearing date Dec. 4, 1861) to the note from the three powers, inviting the co-operation of the United States, he informs them of this contemplated arrangement, and expresses the hope that it will remove the necessity for the proposed intervention. This was immediately rejected as unsatisfactory by each of the three powers. (Earl Cowley to *Earl Russell, Sept. 24, 1861. Ditto, Sept. 27, 1861. Sir J. Crampton to Earl Russell, Dec. 15, 1861. Earl Russell to Sir C. Wyke, 30 March, 1861.) It was made plain by these letters, and the diplomatic conversations to which they refer, that the three powers would not be satisfied with the payment of the debts, ascertained and ascertainable, due to their subjects. They insisted on the further object of the convention, – security for the future good treatment of resident foreigners. The correspondence confirms the view that this security could not, in their opinion, be obtained except by a change of government. The Queen's speech (February, 1862) also assigns as a motive for the convention "the wrongs committed by various parties and by successive governments in Mexico upon various foreigners resident in Mexico, and for which no satisfactory redress could be obtained." The instructions of M. Thouvenel, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, to the admiral commanding the French fleet in the Gulf of Mexico, say: "The presence of the forces of the allies on the Mexican territory may lead the better part of the population, fatigued with anarchy and desirous of order and repose, to make an effort to establish in the country a government affording those guaranties of strength and stability which have been wanting in all those that. have followed each other since the independence." Referring then to the great interest the allies have in such a result, he adds, "That interest induces them not to discourage attempts of the nature of those I have suggested to you; and you ought not to refuse them your encouragement and moral aid, if, by the position of the men who take the initiative in them, and by the sympathy they meet with among the body of the people, they should present chances of success for the institution of such an order of things as would secure to the interests of resident foreigners the protection and guaranties which have hitherto been wanting." The letter concludes with leaving it to the discretion of the admiral and the commissioner to determine "to what extent you may be called upon to take part in these movements." The annual statement of the condition of the French Empire, made in January, 1862, to the Legislative Chamber, expresses the satisfaction the French Government will feel if the intervention "should produce a crisis for Mexico of a nature to favor the recognition of that country." The most complete exposition of the views of the French emperor is to be found in his letter to General Forey, dated July 3, 1862, directing him to