of the Turks, and the Russian strategy was hampered by the necessity of protecting the refugees.

We shall see how Germany by her protests interfered to prevent the European laws of war from being violated by Turkey."

LEGALISM.

The view "Legalism" is characterised by the conception of some injustice or violation of law involved in any interference with the sovereignty of the Porte. Thus by stages we have arrived for the first time at a view which is quite incompatible with anti-Turkism; yet Legalism is closely allied with the idea of public order, and this again has something in common with those factors of anti-Turkism which seek to heal the open sores for the sake of peace.

The exponents of the three notions which constitute "Legalism held respectively the following positions: (1) that Turkey has a right to do as she likes with her own subjects, (2) that any interference between Turkey and her subjects is opposed to the principle of Non-Intervention, and (3) that the Treaty of Paris expressly forbids any such interference. These three positions correspond to the threefold division of International Law into Law Natural or Necessary, Law Customary, and Law Conventional adopted by the text-writers.3

SA. Divine Right of Sovereign States.

The first factor of the group "Legalism" takes without qualification the expositions of the rights of Sovereign States which occur in the text-books, such as the following:

The empire of a nation within its own territory is of natural right exclusive and absolute; it is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by the nation itself. The right of civil and criminal legislation in respect of all property and persons within the territory of a nation is an incident of the right of empire.-Twiss, Law of Nations, Time of Peace, chap. ix. But it should be observed that the right of empire here postulated is, like many of the formulæ of Political Economy, to be regarded rather as a definition, or abstract statement of fact, than as an authoritative ethical maxim. If within its territory a given

1 D. N. about Sept. 21, and Spec. Sept. 1 and 8, 1877.

2 Post, chap. xvi. § 3.

3 See Wheaton, Elements, § 9, and Twiss, Law of Nations, Time of Peace, chap. v.

nation has not the right of civil and criminal legislation with respect to a certain class of persons, then so far its right of empire has been trenched upon. If it is good that its right of empire should remain inviolate, then it ought to have the right of civil and criminal legislation with regard to those persons—if not, not. With respect to Turkey, the subjects of European Powers sojourning in the territory are in fact withdrawn from her legislation by the capitulations. But we meet with expressions. of the notion that the Porte by reason of its sovereignty had an indefeasible moral claim to the obedience of the provincials. Their attempt to shake off its yoke is spoken of as rebellion, and regarded as a crime meriting a terrible retribution; any sympathy with them on the part of other powers would be a partaking in their guilt.

These rebellious States seem to have framed their calculations on the basis of only one event being possible from this war... But if Russia should not triumph, who will befriend them then? The Powers of Europe perhaps? Not so; the Powers of Europe will not act together, and will not concern themselves about these rebels. These last will have to encounter the vengeance of victorious Turkey, and the sooner they realise the fact, the better for them. They have been recklessly heaping up wrath for themselves against the day of wrath, and nobody can pity them when that day comes.—Blackwood, October 1877, "The Storm in the East," V.

§ Note on Technical Non-Intervention and Terminology.

The second legalistic notion depends on the doctrine of the International Lawyers which they call "Non-Intervention." But a little preliminary consideration must be given to the various meanings attached to this word. It is to be regretted that a loose and popular usage has seized hold of the term non-intervention (too widely, it seems, to admit of rescue), making it denote the refusal of a nation to take any part, or at all events any forcible part, in international affairs. This is something quite different from the meaning which the word has in its strict and technical sense. We have here an ambiguity which often produces misunderstanding, as we shall have to notice when we come to speak of Lord Derby's reply to a deputation which waited on him at the Foreign Office on July 14th, 1876.

The following will serve as definitions of the terms Intervention and Non-Intervention in the strict or technical sense:

I wish to examine . . . the principle, as it is often called by publicists, of non-intervention. . . . By intervention I mean the interference, forcible, or supported by force, of one independent State in the internal affairs of another; and by the principle of non-intervention the rule which forbids such interference. These definitions shut out . . . several questions which are often suffered to mix themselves with the one before us the question for example, in what cases a State may properly take part in foreign wars. . . . They exclude also every interference which limits itself to mere intercession or advice.-Mountague Bernard, On the Principle of Non-intervention.

While non-intervention in the popular sense means the holding one's self aloof from any foreign contest, in the technical sense it excludes participation in a particular sort of foreign contest, in those, namely, which are intestine. Professor Bernard. confines it to cases where force is used or contemplated; but the principle seems to extend to any intermeddling in such a contest. The negative word Non-Intervention in the text-books is usually used in the technical sense, but the same thing is hardly true with respect to the positive word Intervention. In fact the precise meaning of the three words Intervention, Interference, Interposition, seems to be by no means settled. Different writers have defined or used them in different ways: first with regard to the nature of the action undertaken, according as the ultimate use of force in case of need be contemplated, or not; and secondly with regard to the occasion of the action.

The following is an account of the technical use of these three words by some writers of authority. Kent1 makes them all three connote force; he identifies Intervention and Interference and makes them apply to participation in internal affairs only, while Interposition, he says, is "the taking part by one State in a quarrel between two portions of another State, or between two other States."

Wheaton 2 appears to treat the words Intervention and Interference and Interposition as synonymous, and to confine them to action forcible or supported by force. He speaks of the "interference" of the five powers in the Belgic Revolution of 1830, and says that the negotiations.

assumed alternately the character of a pacific mediation and of an armed intervention according to the varying circumstances of the contest.-§ 71.

1 Kent's International Law, Abdy's edition, 1878, p. 42.

2 Elements, Dana's edition, §§ 63 and 68.

His editor, Dana, notes :

Publicists have assigned the words "intervention" and "interposition to express the interference of one State in the affairs of another by force, or with force as the known ultimate sanction. . . . But the term "mediation " is limited to an offer of advice or of assistance in the way of arbitration, leaving the acceptance of the offer to the free will of the other party.-§ 72.

It will be observed that Dana's note runs "in the affairs" and not "in the internal affairs" of another State. Wheaton, when speaking of Intervention or Interference seems generally to be treating of participation in internal affairs: but the word Interference is used in a wider sense, and as equivalent to Interposition in reference to the events of 1822.

France had given to Great Britain cause of war by that aggression upon the independence of Spain. The British Government might lawfully have interfered, on grounds of political expediency. . . . Great Britain had limited herself to protesting against the interference of the French Government in the internal affairs of Spain, and had refrained from interposing by force. -$68.

Halleck appears to use the word Intervention as connoting an appeal to force, but he makes the term include participation in a quarrel between independent States, as well as in the internal affairs of a single State.

Wars of intervention are those where one State interferes in favour of a particular State as against others, or in favour of a particular party, sovereign or family in a State. This intervention is divided into two classes, according as it is made with respect to the internal or external affairs of a nation.-(Chap. xvi.) He adopts the term Non-Interference instead of the more usual Non-Intervention to denote the doctrine that forbids participation in the internal affairs of another State, apparently giving the doctrine a wider range than it bears according to Prof. Bernard's enunciation, which expressly confines it to forcible participation. Halleck again expressly makes the term Interference apply to forcible as well as non-forcible participations. Speaking of the recognition of belligerency in civil wars, he

says:—

Each case must be determined by its own peculiar circumstances, all foreign powers which wish to preserve their neutrality strictly observing the principles of non-interference.-(Chap. xvi.);

1 International Law, Baker's edition, 1878.

And in enunciating this principle he says:

No writer of authority on international law advocates any general right of one sovereign and independent State to interfere with the domestic concerns and internal government of another sovereign and independent State. Some, however, make numerous exceptions. . . . We will here examine each of these grounds with respect to pacific interference, reserving to another place a discussion of how far they will justify a resort to force or a war of intervention.-(Chap. iv.)

Lord Derby extended on one occasion at once the scope of the doctrine and the meaning of the term Intervention to apply to non-forcible as well as forcible participation.

Her Majesty's Government . . . doubt the expediency of the intervention of foreign consuls. Such an intervention is scarcely compatible with the independent authority of the Porte.1 Mr. Gathorne Hardy appears to have used the word "intervene " for a non-forcible participation in a quarrel between two nations.

I trust there may be some opportunity for the Government to intervene and endeavour to bring this horrible war to a termination. . . I can vouch we will watch with the deepest anxiety for this opportunity.2

The Daily News (Dec. 13th), criticised this expression sharply, and citing Dana's note asked did Mr. Hardy know the meaning which publicists and diplomatists attach to the word intervention ? But in truth the usage of publicists and diplomatists seems hardly sufficiently settled to justify the strictures of the Daily News, or to preclude the use of the word in a sense which the context rendered pretty plain. Lord Derby appears sometimes to use the word Non-Intervention in the popular sense, but with the addition of some other words to mark the distinction. He uses the phrases, "The principle of non-intervention in its extreme and absolute form." "The doctrine of absolute indifference." 3

There are similar difficulties with regard to the terminology employed with respect to non-forcible participation. The word Mediation is sometimes employed to comprise all such action.

We have pointed out in another chapter the distinction between pacific mediation and armed intervention. The former consists in advice, monition, persuasion. . . . Armed intervention on the contrary consists in threatened or actual force, employed or to be employed. . . .-Halleck, chap. xvi. p. 460.

1 Despatch to Sir Henry Elliot, Aug. 24th, 1865, Turkey II., 1876, No. 16. 2 Edinburgh Speech, Dec. 11th, 1877.

3 At the Foreign Office, July 14th, 1876. See post, part iii. chap. x. § 5.