principles, as because the Treaty partook of the character of a personal bond among the Sovereigns themselves, whilst the British Constitution demanded that any Treaty should be signed by a responsible Minister.

§ 3. FROM THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA TO THE
PRESENT TIME.

But such an alliance of the three Sovereigns did not prevent a speedy outburst of popular indignation in the States which were suffering from the harsh and despotic rule imposed upon them. An occasion, therefore, soon came to test the value of the compact for mutual defence implied by the Holy Alliance. A revolution having taken place at Naples in 1821, a Conference was held at Laibach, a small town in Austria, in which the three Powers were represented, to consider what steps could be taken to suppress the same. And a resolution was passed, establishing their right of armed intervention in the affairs of any neighbouring States which might be troubled by faction, a resolve which virtually gave a mandate to Austria to go and crush the revolution in Naples and Sicily in support of the Bourbon ruler. On the other hand, and in a far different spirit, when, after years of cruel oppression, the Greeks rose up in arms in 1826 to shake off the yoke of Turkey, Great Britain, France, and Russia agreed upon a pacific intervention for the

purpose of stopping the effusion of blood. And the result of their interference was a Treaty concluded in 1830, by which the kingdom of Greece was created, under the guarantee of the Powers. In that same year also, France, tired of the weak and retrograde Government imposed upon her by the Allied Powers, rebelled against Charles X., who represented the elder branch of the Bourbons, and elected to the throne Louis Philippe, the head of the younger branch of the same House, who ascended the throne with a constitutional charter in his hands. Simultaneously with the revolution in France, Belgium revolted against her union with Holland, and the kingdom of Belgium was constituted, under the guarantee of Great Britain, Austria, Prussia, and Russia.

The Greek rebellion suggests a brief digression on the arrival of the Turks in Europe, which became in time an important element in European history. Early in the Middle Ages, Constantinople was still the seat of the practically defunct Roman Empire; Greek Princes reigned in Epirus; Latin Principates were at Achaia and Morea; the Lusignans reigned in Cyprus; the Venetians were masters at Candia and Crete; the House of Anjou possessed Hungary, Sclavonia, Bosnia, Dalmatia, Croatia, and Servia; whilst Moldavia and Wallachia formed separate States. The conquest of Constantinople by Mohammed,* in

*The Koran proclaimed a holy war in the words, "Make war against those who do not believe in God. Fight with them, till they are converted, or till they submit by paying tribute" (Koran, ix. 29).

1453, produced great alarm and consternation among neighbouring States, and many wars were waged to arrest the progress of so dreaded an enemy. But the Treaty of Carlowitz between the Porte, Austria, Poland, Venice, and Russia, concluded in 1699, stemmed the Ottoman invasion, and from that time a complete change took place in the relations of the Turks with the Christians. Instead of being any longer agitated by fear of the Turks, the European States were able to consider how far they would tolerate the presence of the Turks in their midst.*

At one time, the Ottoman States thought it incompetent with the principles of Islamism to conclude any Treaties with Christian Princes. It was only an armistice or a Capitulation † that they were willing to grant to the Christian or the Infidel. But the

That of Passa

After 1734 the

* Mohammed took Constantinople in 1453, and the rest of the Greek Peninsula in 1461; also Bosnia and Wallachia in 1463. Soliman II. took part of Hungary, Transylvania, and Sclavonia, Moldavia, and Rhode in 1522. Salem II. conquered Cyprus from the Venetians in 1570. Mohammed IV. conquered Candia in 1669. But the treaty of Carlowitz of 1699 took from Turkey all Hungary. rowitz took from her Temeswar and part of Servia. Porte lost Bakovina and Little Tartary; from 1809 to 1812 she lost the provinces between the Dnieper and the Danube. In 1819 Turkey lost the Ionian Islands; from 1820 to 1830 she lost part of Greece; in 1829 part of Armenia, as well as Moldavia, and Wallachia, and Servia. In 1833 she lost Algiers. And in recent years, Bulgaria, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Egypt, and Cyprus are practically, if not theoretically, no longer under Turkish rule.

+ Capitulations were letters of privileges and immunities granted by the Sultan, first to the French and afterwards to other Christian Sovereigns, which the Sultan could at any time withdraw or modify.

time came when the Turks felt themselves compelled to relinquish their exclusiveness, and to come to terms with their antagonists. Thus, by the Treaty of Koutschiowii Kaynardii, between Russia and the Porte, in 1774, Turkey agreed to respect the independence of the Tartars in the Crimea, to receive a Russian Minister, to protect the Christian religion and Churches within the Turkish territory, to permit the free navigation of the Black and White Seas to Russian ships, and to recognize the title of Empress of all the Russias. With Prussia, also, the Porte entered into Treaty obligations as early as 1761; so with Spain in 1782, with Austria in 1790, and with Great Britain in 1799. Nevertheless, as late as 1804 Turkey did not recognize any Law of Nations. She did not consider herself bound by the same system of public Laws on which other Nations in Europe had so long acted. And on their side, the European States found in the established customs of the Turks, their arrogance, and their principles of government, an effectual barrier against all common action with them. Turkey, therefore, was not represented at the Congress of Vienna in 1815, and she was not included in the system of public Law then recognized.

Any extension of intercourse between Europe and the Porte was further hindered by the fact that the Sultan, as the successor of the Kalifate, deemed himself the head of a theocratic Government; that the Ulemas, or Doctors of Ecclesiastical Law, held a spiritual

authority, often stronger than that of the civil rulers; and that the Janissaries, an armed force, exercised their rights with all the fervour of religious enthusiasm. In 1826 the Sultan dissolved the body of Janissaries, replaced it by a regular army, and issued an Hatti Sheriff conceding equal political and religious rights to all the subjects of the Empire, without distinction of religion or race. But any expectation of effective and permanent reforms was speedily disappointed. In truth, with the Koran as a political Code, with a Government ruling by force over conquered States, with finances in a chronic state of disorder, with agriculture oppressed by arbitrary taxation, and with commerce and industry utterly paralyzed from want of capital and credit, to say nothing of the institution of polygamy, so offensive to the moral sentiment of Europe, in what manner could the Sultan expect effectually to remodel his States, or to command the respect and confidence of other nations?

Such was the condition of Turkey in 1854, when a paltry quarrel about the Holy Places in Jerusalem, between the Greek and Latin Churches, respectively upheld by Russia and France, led to a conflict in which the leading Powers became engaged. The real issues of the war were, not the respective claims of the two Churches, but whether Russian or FrancoBritish influence should preponderate over Turkey. The Western Powers succeeded in the contest, and by