*

"tration." By an Act between Russia and Turkey in 1849, the Sultan assumed the right to elect the Hospodars for seven years, and to alter the organic status. By the Treaty of Paris, in 1856, the Principalities were to" continue to enjoy under the Suzerainty of the Porte . . the privileges and immunities of which they "are in possession," defined to be "Independent and "National Administration as well as full liberty of "Worship, of Legislation, of Commerce, and of Navigation," and the right to maintain a "National Armed Force to maintain the Security of the Interior, and to ensure that "of the Frontiers." Their rights were also secured by the Convention signed at Paris in 1858 to the Principalities "under the Suzerainty of His Majesty the Sultan." They are enumerated as Free Administration exempt from any interference of the Porte with the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Power, but it is expressly laid down that the "Suzerain Court shall arrange with the Principalities the "measures for the defence of their territory in case of "external aggression," and that "As hitherto the Inter"national Treaties which shall be concluded by the "Suzerain Court with Foreign Powers shall be applicable "to the Principalities in all that shall not prejudice their "immunities." Until the events immediately preceding the Treaty of Berlin, the rights secured under this Convention of Paris were fully enjoyed by the United Provinces, but it is clear that neither these nor any antecedently possessed were other than strictly non-international rights. The Firman of Investiture of Prince Charles of Hohenzollern as Prince of the United Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia § plainly shows this, and it is, moreover,

+ Hertslet, Map of Europe, II., 1250. Hertslet's Treaties, X., 533. Hertslet, Map of Europe, II., 1329; Hertslet's Treaties, X., 1052. § Constantinople, October 23rd, 1866.-Hertslet, Map of Europe, 1783.

important as showing that the granting of full interior rights. was not considered to deprive the Suzerain of the Sovereignty over his vassal State. After conferring hereditary rank and the prerogatives of Prince of the United Principalities, -the prerogatives referring to the immunities enjoyed by Moldavia and Wallachia, -the Firman enjoined him to "respect in their integrity my rights of Sovereignty over "the United Principalities," it limited the armed force to be maintained to a number considered, it is presumed, sufficient for defence and ordered that no Treaties or Conventions should be directly concluded with Foreign Powers other than arrangements of an unofficial or nonpolitical character.

Greece again, previous to 1830, was a vassal State under the suzerainty of the Porte. The Treaty of London, in 1827,* between England, France, and Russia defined the position to be held by Greece thenceforward to be under the "Suzeraineté" of the Sultan as Lord Paramount("Seigneur Suzerain "), the Greeks to be governed by authorities whom they should choose and appoint themselves, but in the nomination of whom the Porte should have a defined right, and to have the right to send to and receive from the Signatory Powers, Consular Agents (not Ministers, thus showing that in the opinion of these Powers Greece was not entitled to the jus legationis).

At the Conferences between the same Powers in 1828t and 1829, the Protocol drawn up in the latter year being adhered to by the Porte in September, 1829,§ it was determined that this control on the part of the Porte over the nomination of the Greek authorities should cease; but, that by virtue of the suzerainty, every Chief of Greece. should still receive his investiture from the Porte. The * Hertslet, IV., 304.

+ Hertslet, Map of Europe, 798. Hertslet, State Papers, XVII. 405] § Ibid. 812.

Hertslet, Map of Europe, II., 804.

administration should be assimilated to monarchical forms, and be entirely in the hands of an hereditary Prince, but still no international rights were granted until the following year, when, by a Protocol signed at London,* and accepted both by Greece and by the Ottoman Porte,† the same Powers determined that Greece should be freed from vassalage and raised to the dignity of an independent State under a sovereign Prince.

The relations between the Barbary States and the Porte have been very indefinite. From before the time of Charles II., Algiers (until its seizure by France in 1830), Tunis (until informally annexed by France in 1881), and Tripoli were practically independent, while acknowledging the supremacy of, and theoretically, at least, dependent on the Porte as Suzerain.‡ Each frequently entered into treaty engagements with European Powers directly, and these Powers have often enforced redress in vindication of the injuries done to their subjects, immediately, and, in the first instance from the dependencies themselves. Treaties, for instance, can be referred to between Great Britain and Algiers from 1682 to 1824, France and Algiers from 1764 to 1830,|| Sweden, Austria, Denmark, Spain, and the United States of America with the same State from 1729 to 1816;¶ also between Great Britain and Tripoli from 1662 to 1816,* between Holland, Austria, France and Spain and Tripoli from 1713 to 1830,†† between Great Britain and Tunis, 1662 to 1875, and

* Ibid. 841.

+ See Treaty of London, 1832, Art. IV. Hertslet, Map of Europe, II., 895. See Molloy, De Jure Maritimo, IV., sec. 4.

Heitslet, Treaties, I., 58.87. Martens, Recueil de Traités, I., 68 -Nouveau Supplément, I., 660.

Martens, Supplément, III., 68.-Nouveau Recueil Général, VII., 362.
Martens, Recueil, VI., 296,-Nouveau Recueil, V., S., 6.

**Hertslet, Treaties, I., 125-153. Martens, Supplément, I., 140.-Nouveau Supplément, I., 493.

+ Martens, Supplément, I., 98.-Nouveau Recueil, X., 52.

Hertslet, Treaties, I., 157-174; III., 28; XIV., 541. Martens, Supplément, I., 147.-Nouveau Recucil Général, XX., 78.

*

between other European Powers and the same State from 1712 to 1856, but it has never been admitted by the Porte that they had the right to enter into such engagements, and not only has the Porte frequently addressed commands to these dependencies relative to their conduct in matters in which foreign nations were interested,† but they have rendered or promised obedience to these orders; and indeed the European Powers have acknowledged the right of the Porte to enter into treaties on behalf of these States. Again, although redress has been enforced directly against the dependencies, Turkey has also been held liable for losses sustained at their hands. In 1783 for instance, Austria obtained a guarantee from Turkey against the "korsaren aus den Barbaresken-kantonen,"§ and in 1826 Russia exacted an indemnity from the Porte for the damage to subjects and merchants of Russia "by the pirates of the Regencies of Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli." In proof also that the European Powers never admitted these Dependencies to the jus legationis, none of them ever accredited public Ministers to their Courts but only Consuls.¶ The relations indeed are said to be "of an anomalous and perplexing character,”** and "the necessity of the cases, and the reason of the thing have rendered this irregular mode of international proceeding unavoidable.”††

* Martens, Supplément I., 92.-Nouveau Recueil Général, XVII. ire P., 179. To Algiers, Tripoli and Tunis in 1803 (obedience to a treaty of navigation and commerce which the Porte had concluded with Prussia), Martens, Recueil (2), VIII., 465. To Tripoli in 1848, 1850, 1855, 1858, 1859, 1869 (Suppression of Slave Trade), Hertslet, Treaties, IX., 738; X., 602; XI., 551, 553; XIII., 836, 837, 843, &c.

See Treaties between Great Britain and Turkey (Tripoli and Tunis), 1675, Hertslet, Treaties, II.. 346; Prussia and Turkey (Algiers, Tripoli and Tunis) 1803, Martens, Recueil, (2), VIII., 465; Great Britain, France, Italy and Turkey (Tripoli), 1873, Hertslet's Treaties, XIV., 540.

§ Martens, Nouveau Recueil Général, XV., 459.

||Treaty of Ackermann, Art, VII. Hertslet, Map of Europe, I., 751.

Phillimore, I., art. xc.

** Ibid. I., art. lxxxvi. Boyd's, Wheaton, p. 50.

++ Ibid. I., lxxxvii.

A case from the Far East may be also referred to of the exercise of external rights by the Suzerain. In Japan prior to the suppression of their régime by the Mikado, in 1871, the Daimios held apparently a practically analogous position to vassal princes in the West, subject to the suzerainty of the Mikado. The Mikado, in 1867, by treaty with the European Powers, threw open certain ports to foreigners for the purpose of trade, and this international arrangement he ordered by proclamation to be notified throughout not only the government territory but the territories of the Daimios, as an international arrangement affecting them, and lawfully made by him on behalf of those his vassal States.

As bearing in the same manner on the Suzerain's right to control the international relations of States vassal to him, the action of the Chinese Government may be quoted with regard to the proposal of France in 1881 to deal directly by Treaty with Tonquin. The Chinese Ambassador, acting on the instructions of his Government, at once remonstrated on the grounds that China was the suzerain State, and that in that character it could not view with indifference anything which might alter the international relations of Tonquin. The independence of Tonquin had already been stipulated by the Treaty with France of 1875, but the fact that the objection was put forward tends to confirm the principle of the Suzerain's right to the control of international arrangements which concern the vassal State.

A similar remark may be made with reference to the action of the Spanish Government in 1881 with regard to the granting of a charter to the British North Borneo Company, giving power to it to trade, fly flags, &c., and

Bluntschli, art. 77.

† Sir Rutherford Alcock, The Capital of the Tycoon, &c.
Herstlet's Treaties, XIII,, 662.

§ The Times, October 8th, 1881.