2. The Principality of Monaco, which had been under the protectorate of France from 1641 until the French revolution, nations. Kluber, Droit des Gens moderne de l'Europe, § 24, Ann. Reg. 1821, p. 250. By the treaty of Adrianople, of 1829, between Russia and Turkey, it was stipulated that Moldavia and Wallachia being placed under the suzeraineté of the Porte, and Russia having guaranteed their prosperity, they were to preserve all their ancient privileges and immunities, including the enjoyment of their religion, perfect security, a national and independent administration, and the full liberty of trade. By a separate act annexed to the treaty, it was provided that the Hospodars, whose election it was stipulated by the treaty of Bucharest, of 1812, should be made by the General Assembly of the Divan, according to the ancient usage of the country, should be invested with their dignity for life, except in case of abdication or expulsion for specific crimes. They were to administer the internal government with the assistance of the Divans. The Sublime Porte engaged to retain no fortified place on the left bank of the Danube, nor to permit any settlement of its Mohammedan subjects in Moldavia and Wallachia. Mussulmans possessing landed property were to sell it to natives, and all the Turkish cities on the left bank of the Danube were to be restored to Wallachia. The governments of the principalities, as being independent in their internal administration, were authorized to establish quarantine regulations, and to maintain a sufficient military force to compel obedience to their decrees. A pecuniary indemnity was to be substituted for the various contributions in kind, and the forced service (corvée) previously exacted. The inhabitants were to enjoy unlimited freedom of trade, subject only to such restraint as the Hospodars, with the consent of the Divans, might impose for the benefit of the country, and they were to be allowed to navigate the Danube in their own vessels as well as to trade to other parts of the Turkish dominions, with passports from their own governments. As to the Servians, the treaty provided for carrying into effect the separate article of the Convention of Ackerman, of 25th September, 1826, which itself referred to the eighth article of the Treaty of Bucharest. By it, Turkey had, among other stipulations, bound herself to restore the districts separated from Servia, to grant the Servians freedom of religion and commerce, the election of their national chiefs, the independence of the internal administration, the consolidation of the several imposts into a single tax, permission for the merchants to travel with their own passports in the Ottoman States, the establishment of hospitals, schools, and printing offices, and to provide for the exclusion of Mussulmans, with the exception of the Turkish garrisons, from Servia. The hatti-sherif, by which further concessions were to be confirmed, was to be communicated to Russia, whose government was to be kept informed of the execution of the stipulations of the Treaty of Bucharest, in behalf of the Servians. The Prince of Servia, who is elected for life, shares his power with the Senate, also elected for life. A general assembly, named by all the citizens, controls the acts of the Prince and the Senate. Martens, Recueil de Traités, Supplément, tom. vii. p. 397; Annual Reg. 1829, p. 476, 481; Id. 1826, p. 349; Lésur-Annuaire Hist. 1826, app. p. 100; Annuaire des Deux Mondes, 1850, p. 798. The extraordinary assembly of the was replaced under the same protection by the treaty of Paris, 1814, art. 3, for which was substituted that of Sardinia by the treaty of Paris, 1815, art. 1.' 3. The Republic of Polizza in Dalmatia under the Protectorate of Austria.2 Divan for the election of the Hospodar of Wallachia is composed of the bishops, the boyards, (nobles,) and the deputies of the towns, and is presided over by the Metropolitan. The election is notified to Russia as well as the Porte. The oath taken by the Prince or Hospodar at the inauguration, was "Je jure au nom de la très Sainte Trinité, d'observer à la lettre et sans y déroger en rien les lois de la principauté de Valachie, d'après la nouvelle constitution de l'état, de les maintenir et les faire observer dans toute leur vigueur." Rev. Etr. et Françoise, t. ii. p. 366. What were the political relations of these principalities at a period subsequent to the last treaties between Turkey and Russia, is elsewhere considered by our author. In a despatch to the Secretary of State, dated at Berlin, 24th May, 1843, Mr. Wheaton says, "Russia has a concurrent voice in the appointment of the Hospodars of Wallachia and Moldavia, and the right of interposing in the elections of the princes of Servia. It seems probable that the control of Russia over Servia will hereafter be exercised in the same manner as in the principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, where Russian consuls exercise a similar influence over the local authorities to that exercised by the British residents at the courts of the native princes of India, whose dominions are not yet formally annexed to the Anglo-Indian Empire." The entire independence of these principalities was repeatedly, before the present war, the subject of consideration with the cabinets of Europe; and it was understood that the treaty of commerce between Austria and Great Britain, concluded in 1838, contained a secret article, by which these powers agreed to obtain its recognition by the Porte. Wheaton's MS. Despatches. The Convention of Balta-Liman, concluded between Russia and the Porte, in 1849, purported to adopt measures against anarchical proceedings in the principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia; it modified the appointment of the Hospodars, who, by virtue of its provisions, were named for seven years, from 16th June, 1849; and it also suspended the assemblies of the boyards, granted by the organic statute of 1831. It provided, furthermore, for the occupation of the provinces by a joint Russian and Turkish force, of which 10,000 men were to remain till the organic reforms were completed, and it stipulated for the residence of Russian and Turkish commissioners. See for Treaty, Parliamentary Papers for 1849, vol. xxvii. Another semi-sovereign State in Turkey, treated almost as independent by Austria, as well as Russia, is Montenegro; the government of which, both political and ecclesiastical, had been for a century and a half, previous to 1852, vested in the bishop, who designated his successor by will. The spiritual and civil offices are, however, now divided, in consequence of the refusal of the present prince to assume holy orders. Annuaire des Deux Mondes, 1852 – 3, p. 633.] 1 Martens, Nouveau Recueil, tome ii. pp. 5, 687. 2 Martens, Précis du Droit des Gens, liv. i. ch. 2, § 20. 4. The former Germanic Empire was composed of a great number of States, which, although enjoying what was called territorial superiority, (Landeshoheit,) could not be considered as completely sovereign, on account of their subjection to the legislative and judicial power of the emperor and the empire. These have all been absorbed in the sovereignty of the States composing the present Germanic Confederation, with the exception of the Lordship of Kniphausen, on the North Sea, which still retains its former feudal relation to the Grand Duchy of Oldenburg, and may, therefore, be considered as a semi-sovereign State.1 5. Egypt had been held by the Ottoman Porte, during the dominion of the Mamelukes, rather as a vassal State than as a subject province. The attempts of Mehemet Ali, after the destruction of the Mamelukes, to convert his title as a princevassal into absolute independence of the Sultan, and even to extend his sway over other adjoining provinces of the empire, produced the convention concluded at London the 15th July, 1840, between four of the great European powers, Austria, Great Britain, Prussia, and Russia, to which the Ottoman Porte acceded. In consequence of the measures subsequently taken by the contracting parties for the execution of this treaty, the hereditary Pashalick of Egypt was finally vested by the Porte in Mehemet Ali, and his lineal descendants, on the payment of an annual tribute to the Sultan, as his suzerain. All the treaties and all the laws of the Ottoman Empire were to be applicable to Egypt, in the same manner as to other parts of the empire. But the Sultan consented that, on condition of the regular payment of this tribute, the Pasha should collect, in the name and as the delegate of the Sultan, the taxes and imposts legally established, it being, moreover, understood that the Pasha should defray all the expenses of the civil and military administration; and that the military and naval force maintained by him should always be considered as maintained for the service of the State.2 Tributary States, and States having a feudal relation to each other, are still considered as sovereign, so far as their sovereignty is not affected by this relation. § 14. Tributary and vassal Thus, States. 1 Heffter, Das Europäische Völkerrecht, § 19. it is evident that the tribute, formerly paid by the principal maritime powers of Europe to the Barbary States, did not at all affect the sovereignty and independence of the former. So also the King of Naples had been a nominal vassal of the Papal See, ever since the eleventh century; but this feudal dependence, abolished in 1818, was never considered as impairing the sovereignty of the kingdom of Naples.1 between the Ottoman the Barbary Relations The political relations between the Ottoman Porte and the Barbary States are of a very anomalous character. Their occasional obedience to the commands States. of the Sultan, accompanied with the irregular payment of tribute, does not prevent them from being considered by the Christian powers of Europe and America as independent States, with whom the international relations of war and peace are maintained, on the same footing as with other Mohammedan sovereignties. During the Middle Age, and especially in the time of the Crusades, they were considered as pirates: "Bugia ed Algieri, infami nidi di corsari," as Tasso calls them. But they have long since acquired the character of lawful powers, possessing all those attributes which distinguish a lawful State from a mere association of robbers.2 "The Algerines, Tripolitans, Tunisians, and those of Salee," says Bynkershoek, "are not pirates, but regular organized societies, who have a fixed territory and an established government, with whom we are alternately at peace and at war, as with other nations, and who, therefore, are entitled to the same rights as other independent States. The European sovereigns often enter into treaties with them, and the States-General have done it in several instances. Cicero defines a regular enemy to be: Qui habet rempublicam, curiam, ærarium, consensum et concordiam civium, rationem aliquam, si res ita tulisset, pacis et fæderis. (Philip. 4, c. 14.) All these things are to be found among the barbarians of Africa; for they pay the same regard to treaties of peace and alliance that other nations do, who generally attend more to their convenience than to their engagements. And if they should not observe the faith of treaties with the most scrupu 1 Ward's Hist. of the Law of Nations, vol. ii. p. 69. 2 Sir L. Jenkins's Works, vol. ii. p. 791. Robinson's Adm. Rep. vol. iv. p. The Helena. 5. lous respect, it cannot be well required of them; for it would be required in vain of other sovereigns. Nay, if they should even act with more injustice than other nations do, they should not, on that account, as Huberus very properly observes, (De Jure Civitat. 1. iii. c. 5, § 4, n. ult.) lose the rights and privileges of sovereign States."1 The political relation of the Indian nations on this continent towards the United States, is that of semi-sovereign States, under the exclusive protectorate of another power. Some of these savage tribes have totally extinguished their national fire, and submitted themselves to the laws of the States within whose territorial limits they reside; others have acknowledged, by treaty, that they hold their national existence at the will of the State; others retain a limited sovereignty, and the absolute proprietorship of the soil. The latter is the case with the tribes to the west of Georgia.2 Thus the Supreme Court of the United States determined, in 1831, that, though the Cherokee nation of Indians, dwelling within the jurisdictional limits of Georgia, was not a "foreign State" in the sense in which that term is used in the Constitution, nor entitled, as such, to proceed in that Court against the State of Georgia, yet the Cherokees constituted a State, or a distinct political society, capable of managing its own affairs and governing itself, and that they had uniformly been treated as such since the first settlement of the country. The numerous treaties made with them by the United States recognize them as a people capable of maintaining the relations of peace and war, and responsible in their political capacity. Their relation to the United States was nevertheless peculiar. They were a domestic dependent nation; their relation to us resembled that of a ward to his guardian; and they had an unquestionable right to the lands they occupied, until that right should be extinguished by a voluntary cession to our government.3 The same decision was repeated by the Supreme Court, in another case, in 1832. In this case, the Court declared that the British crown had never attempted, previous to the Revolution, * Peters's Rep. vol. v. p. 1. The Cherokee Nation v. The State of Georgia |