year 1801, Lord Stowell fully adopted this position, and asserted that the African States had long ago acquired the character of established Governments, with whom we have regular treaties acknowledging and confirming to them the relations of legal communities (t); and he remarked that, although their notions of International justice differ from those which we entertain, we do not on that account venture to call in question their public acts-that is to say, that although they are perhaps on some points entitled to a relaxed application of the principles of International Law, derived exclusively from European custom, they are nevertheless treated as having the rights and duties of States by the civilized world (u).

est nunc bellum, non secus ac cum aliis gentibus, quique propterea ceterorum principum jure esse videntur."-Bynkershoek, Quæst. J. P. b. i. c. 17.

(t) The Helena, 4 C. Rob. Adm. Rep. p. 5. Life of Sir Leoline Jenkins, vol. ii. p. 794.

(u) It is well known that, for some time, the lawfulness of any dealings, much more any treaty, between the Christian and the Turk was denied. Albericus Gentilis discusses (De Jure Belli, lib. iii. c. xix.), "Si foedus recte contrahitur cum diversæ religionis hominibus, quæstio partim theologica, partim civilis." He treats it, however, for the most part, theologically, and arrives at the conclusions that commerce is lawful between Christian and Heathen States, but not in alliance against another Heathen State; and, a fortiori, not against another Christian State. Nevertheless, in a former chapter he had said, with a liberality scarcely known to the age in which he lived, "Religionis jus hominibus cum hominibus proprie non est: itaque nec jus læditur hominum ob diversam religionem; itaque, nec bellum causa religionis. Religio erga Deum est; jus est divinum, id est, inter Deum et hominem; non est jus humanum, id est, inter hominem et hominem: nihil igitur quæritat homo violatam sibi ob aliam religionem."—Lib. i. c. ix. See Inaugural Lecture on Albericus Gentilis, by Professor Holland at Oxford, 1874.

Grotius, de J. B. et P. lib. ii. c. xv. 8-12: "De fœderibus frequens est quæstio, licitene ineantur cum his qui a vera religione alieni sunt: quæ res in jure naturæ dubitationem non habet; nam id jus ita omnibus hominibus commune est, ut religionis discrimen non admittat. Sed de jure divino quæritur.”

Lord Coke said there were four kinds of Leagues: 1st, Fœdus Pacis ; 2nd, Fœdus Congratulationis; 3rd, Fœdus Commutationis Mercium.

These observations were always applicable in some degree to the relations of the Ottoman Porte itself with other Governments. The Ottoman Empire extends, whether in Asia, Africa, or Europe, over a vast variety of distinct nations and separate races. Hardly have those separate races which profess the Mahometan religion coalesced into one nation. But the Christian, whether of the Greek or the Roman Catholic Faith, has never entirely lost those distinctions of origin, manners, institutions, and, above all, of religion, which eternally separate him from the Turk. These distinctions have always been and must always be indelible. The Mahometan and the Christian may live under the same government (r), but they will remain distinct nations. The two streams are immiscible in their character, and will never "flow the same."

It is unnecessary to consider the relations of the Algerine State with Europe. The gallant exploit of Lord Exmouth in 1815, and the bombardment of Algiers, compelled the Dey not only to set free his slaves and to abolish all Christian slavery, but also to promise a compliance with the usages of civilized States (y). Nevertheless, Algerine piracy was not entirely suppressed till 1830-1838, when the French took possession of Algiers and a portion of the adjoining territory. It is unnecessary to consider whether, in these circumstances, this act was entirely justifiable, whether a conquest of the territory was the only or right means of avenging an insult (z). The conquest has, I think, been of service to Christendom, and generally to the civilized world. It should be observed, however, that, in spite of the remonstrance of England, no attention whatever was paid by France to the

These three might exist between a Christian and an Infidel State, but the 4th, Fœdus Mutui Auxilii, could not.-4th Inst. p. 155.

Ward's Law of Nations, ii. 321 (Of Treaties with Powers not Christian). (x) See Lord Stowell's Judgment in The Indian Chief, 3 C. Rob. Adm. Rep. p. 29.

(y) Ann. Reg. 1816, p. 97. (z) Ann. Reg. 1830, p. 238.

rights and interests of the Porte as Suzerain of the Dey (a). The subsequent incorporation of all the Algerine territory in 1841-1847 was another act of conquest which the necessity of maintaining the former conquest was alleged to justify (b).

For some time after the conquest of Constantinople (1453) grave doubts were entertained by the nations of Christendom as to the lawfulness of any pacific intercourse with the Sultan. It was not till after the Treaty of Constantinople in 1720, that the Russian minister was permitted to reside at Constantinople; and direct relations between Roman Catholic Sovereigns and the Porte can scarcely be said to have an earlier date than the end of the eighteenth century (c). Even after the lapse of nearly four centuries, at the Congress

(a) M. Guizot is silent on this point, and I cannot agree with the proposition which precedes his historical reference to the fact of the capture of Algiers. The doctrine of national instincts of aggrandisement is, pace tanti viri, most unsound, and has been very mischievous to France.

(b) "L'immobilité extérieure n'est pas toujours la condition obligée des Etats, de grands intérêts nationaux peuvent conseiller et autoriser la guerre; c'est une honnête erreur, mais une erreur de croire que, pour être juste, toute guerre doit être purement défensive; il y a eu et il y aura, entre les Etats divers, des conflits naturels et des changements territoriaux légitimes; les instincts d'agrandissement et de gloire ne sont pas, en tout cas, interdits aux nations et à leurs chefs. Quand le roi Charles X, en 1830, declara la guerre au dey d'Alger, ce n'était point là, de notre part, une guerre défensive, et pourtant celle-là était légitime; outre l'affront que nous avions à venger, nous donnions enfin satisfaction à un grand et légitime intérêt, français et européen, en délivrant la Méditerranée des pirates qui l'infestaient depuis des siècles."-Guizot, Mémoires pour servir à l'Histoire de mon Temps, tome iv. pp. 9, 10.

The same author writes (tome vii. ch. xli. pp. 125-6): "Quant à la nécessité de soumettre complètement les Arabes et d'établir la domination française dans toute l'étendue de l'Algérie, j'étais de l'avis du général Bugeaud; la question n'était plus, comme de 1830 à 1838, entre l'occupation restreinte et l'occupation étendue; la situation de la France dans le nord de l'Afrique avait changé ; les faits s'étaient développés et avaient amené leurs conséquences; la conquête effective de toute l'Algérie était devenue la condition de notre établissement à Alger et sur la côte."

(c) 2 Miltitz, Manuel des Consuls, p. 1571.

of Vienna, 1815, the Ottoman Empire was not represented, nor was it included in the provisions of positive public law contained in the Treaty which was the result of the Congress. Nevertheless, the International intercourse between the Sultan and other Powers was then, and had been for a long time, upon a much stricter footing of legality, than had subsisted between those Powers and the African or Barbary States.

Long before the Treaty of Vienna (1815) the Crescent had ceased to be an object of terror to Christendom; and a principle of International Policy with respect to the Ottoman Power, directly the reverse of that which had formerly prevailed, had taken root in Europe-namely, the principle that the preservation and independence of the Ottoman Power was necessary for the safety of European Communities (d). LXVI. The Treaties affecting the relations of Russia with the Porte are the following:

(d) The question of the religious Protectorate claimed by Christian Powers with respect to the Christian subjects of the Sultan, both in Europe and Asia, will be discussed hereafter.

Vide ante, ch. vi. TREATIES.

1779

1783-4

1790-1-2

1809

1812

1826

1829

1833

1840

1841

LXVII. But the general Treaties between the Ottoman Porte and the European States appear to be best arranged as follows:

1. From the conquest of Constantinople to the Treaty of Carlowitz, 1699. 2. From the Treaty of Carlowitz, 1699, to the Treaty of Belgrade, 1739. 3. From the Treaty of Belgrade, 1739, to the Treaty of Bucharest, 1812. 4. From the Treaty of Bucharest, 1812, to the Treaty of the Dardanelles in 1841.

5. From the Treaty of the Dardanelles, 1841, to the Treaty of Paris in 1856.

6. The Treaty of Paris, 1856.

7. From the Treaty of Paris, 1856, to the Treaty of London, 1871. 8. From the Treaty of London, 1871, to the Treaty of Berlin, 1878.

LXVIII. By the Treaty of Vienna in 1731 Great Britain made common cause with Austria against every enemy but the Turk (e).

The Peace of Szistowe (1791), between Austria and the Porte, and the Peace of Jassy (1792), between Russia and the Porte, were concluded under the mediation of the triple alliance of Great Britain, Prussia, and Holland.

In 1798, when Napoleon invaded Egypt, Russia and the Porte concluded an alliance confirming the Treaty of Jassy, and mutually guaranteeing the integrity of their dominions. To this Treaty Great Britain acceded in 1799: it expired in 1806, and was renewed in 1809 by the Treaty of Constantinople, by the eleventh article of which Great Britain acknowledged that the strait of the Dardanelles was mare clausum under the dominion of the Porte.

The Treaty of Bucharest, in 1812, put an end to the hostilities which had raged between Russia and the Porte since 1809. This Treaty greatly advanced the boundary of Russia.

(e) Mably, Droit public de l'Europe, ii. 226.