Part I. Abd-ul- tion the Great Powers were to be invited to sign an Act recognising and guaranteeing the inviolability of Egyptian territory; under which Act no Power should have the right, in any circumstance, to land troops on Egyptian territory, except in the event of obstruction in the Suez Canal, when the passage of 1,000 men at one time might be effected by the most rapid means and route. But the Ottoman government might land troops to repel apprehended invasion, or in case of internal disorder; and a similar right was reserved to the British government. If at the expiration of the three years stipulated in the convention for the withdrawal of the British troops, one of the Great Mediterranean Powers should not have accepted it, this was to be considered as an appearance of danger from without justifying the postponement of evacuation. The adhesion of the signatories of the Berlin Treaty, and subsequently of other governments having arrangements with the Khediviate, was to be invited (i). The Sultan, under pressure from other Powers, failed to ratify the convention within the stipulated period of one month, or within an extended period allowed by Great Britain, and it consequently fell through (k). The legality of the British occupation is therefore remitted to the convention of 1885. In July, 1887, in the course of negotiations with reference to the Suez Canal Convention, M. Waddington gave expression to the hope of the French government that the whole of Egypt might some day be neutralized (7); and this is a solution of the question which would, apparently, meet with the approval of the Powers. But as Great Britain insists on the reservation of a right of re-occupation in certain contingencies, and of a right of regulated transit for any Great Power in case the canal is blocked, there are obvious difficulties in the way of an arrangement with France, for the latter country, which has a hold on Egyptian affairs through the Mixed Administrations, and whose traditional interest was strengthened by the part taken by Frenchmen in the construction of the Suez Canal, has hitherto declined to assent to neutralization except on the condition that Egypt shall be a forbidden land to all European troops (m). In a cause, instituted in 1885, decided in the Privy Council in 1888, on appeal from Her Majesty's Supreme Consular Court at Constantinople, Egypt was regarded as part of the Ottoman dominions. "Cairo," it was said, "is in no sense British soil; it is the possession of a foreign government, and subject to the sovereignty of the Porte," and in the Order of Council establishing Consular Courts of August 8, 1899, Egypt is expressly mentioned as being included in the "dominions of the Sublime Ottoman Porte." But while no legal act has affected the titular sovereignty of the Porte, the course of events since the last edition of this book has gone some way towards weakening (i) Parl. Paper, Egypt, No. 7 (1887). (k) Times, 28 June, 1887; 4 July, 1887. (1) Parl. Paper, Egypt, No. 1 (1888). (m) Parl. Paper, Egypt, No. 7 (1887). See now, however, the Anglo-French Agreement of April, 1904, Appendix J. the tie. The pacification of the Soudan has been carried out without Chap. II any reference to the Sultan, and its administration, after the overthrow of the Khalifa, was organized on the basis of an agreement made between the British and Egyptian governments in January, 1899, nor has the Sultan's co-operation been invited in the organization of the army and the various departments of the public service. On the other hand, the attempt made in June, 1893, by the present Khedive, Abbas Hilmi, to assert his freedom from foreign control was repressed by Lord Cromer in a manner which emphasised his dependency on the protecting Power, and he was made to understand that no changes in the personnel of the Administration would be permitted without a previous agreement with the Agent of Great Britain, whose very title proclaims bis anomalous position (n). San Marino $36d. Another semi-sovereign State is the Republic of San Marino, which Republics of was formerly under the protection of the Holy See, but which is now and Andorre. under that of Italy (o). Andorre, which is sometimes included among semi-sovereign States, is a small independent republic situate on the Pyreneean frontier, between France and Spain (p). 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. Thus, 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 (q). § 37. Tributary and vassal States. between the The political relations between the Ottoman Porte and Relations the Barbary States are of a very anomalous character. Ottoman Their occasional obedience to the commands of the Barbary Sultan, accompanied with the irregular payment of (n) Abd-ul-Messih v. Farra, 13 App. Cas. 431, 438, per Lord Watson, delivering the judgment of the Judicial Committee, London Gazette, Aug. 11, 1899. For a French view of the English occupation, see "Situation de L'Egypte et du Soudan juridique et politique," by Dr. Jules Cocheris (Paris, 1903). (0) Convention of 22nd March, 1862. See Hertslet, Map of Europe, vol. ii. p. 1508. (p) Ibid. vol. ii. p. 1510. State Papers, vol. xxx. p. 1217. An interesting historical account of San Marino and Andorre will be found in Calvo, ii. § 72. That learned writer says, that the true place of Andorre is among independent protected States. (2) Ward's Hist. of the Law of Nations, vol. ii. p. 69. Porte and the States. Part I. 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 Ages, 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 (r). "The Algerines, Tripolitans, Tunisians, and those of Salee," says Bynkershoek, "are not pirates, but regular organised 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 ità tulisset, pacis et fœderis. (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 scrupulous 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 (8). (r) Sir L. Jenkins's Works, vol. ii. P. 791. The Helena, 4 C. Rob. 5. (s) Bynkershoek, Quæst. Jur. Pub. lib. i. cap. xvii. Chap. II. $37a. Algiers was conquered by France in 1831. Tunis has been occupied by the same power since 1881, and is administered by French officials under a convention concluded with the Bey in 1883. The Present Sublime Porte protested against this occupation, as it had previously position of Barbary against the virtual protectorate assumed by France for some years States. before. But the French government refused to recognise a claim which had had no effective assertion for two centuries. The Tunisian occupation gave rise to an apprehension of French designs on Tripoli, and led to a diplomatic correspondence, in which the British Foreign Secretary (Lord Granville) asserted Tripoli to be an integral part of the dominions of the Sultan of Turkey, and this proposition was assented to on the part of France as indisputable (t). $ 38. American The political relation of the Indian nations on this North continent towards the United States is that of semi- Indians. sovereign States, under the exclusive protectorate of another power. Some of these savage tribes have wholly 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 (u). 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 recognise them as a people capable of maintaining the relations of peace and war, and (t) Parl. Papers, Tunis, Nos. 1-8 (1881); Annual Register, 1882, 1883. It is by no means clear that Tunis is not legally under the sovereignty of the Sultan. Parl. Papers, supra; Calvo, ii. (u) Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch, 146. Part I 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 (x). 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, to interfere with the national affairs of the Indians, farther than to keep out the agents of foreign powers, who might seduce them into foreign alliances. The British government purchased the alliance and dependence of the Indian nations by subsidies, and purchased their lands, when they were willing to sell, at the price they were willing to take, but it never coerced a surrender of them. The British crown considered them as nations, competent to maintain the relations of peace and war, and of governing themselves under its protection. The United States, who succeeded to the rights of the British crown, in respect to the Indians, did the same, and no more; and the protection stipulated to be afforded to the Indians, and claimed by them, was understood by all parties as only binding the Indians to the United States, as dependent allies. A weak power does not surrender its independence and right to self-government by associating with a stronger and taking its protection. This was the settled doctrine of the Law of Nations, and the Supreme Court therefore concluded and adjudged, that the Cherokee nation was a distinct community, occupying its own territory, with boundaries accurately described, within which the laws of Georgia could not rightfully have any force, and into which the citizens of (x) The Cherokee Nation v. The State of Georgia, 5 Peters, 1. See also The State of Georgia v. Stanton, 6 Wallace, 71; The Cherokee Trust Funds, 117 U. S. 288, 308, where the History of the Cherokees is traced in the judgment of the Court; Worcester v. State of Georgia, 6 Pet. 515. |