the Treaty of Paris of March 30, 1856,* for the first time in her history, Turkey was placed in a position of direct responsibility towards Europe; the Sublime Porte having been admitted to participate in the advantages of her public Law and System, on condition, however, that the Sultan would endeavour to ameliorate the state of his subjects, and would record his generous intentions towards the Christian population of the Empire. The Sultan agreed to communicate to the contracting parties the Firman which he would issue to that effect, but on the express understanding that such communication should not give to the Powers any right to interfere, either collectively or separately, in his relations with his subjects, nor in the internal administration of his Empire.

By the Treaty of 1856, Turkey accepted the provisions of the Congress of Vienna respecting the free navigation of rivers, and engaged to apply the same to the Danube and its mouths, the signatory Powers, including Turkey, declaring that this engagement should thenceforth form part of the public Law of Europe, and that they should take it under their guarantee. By a separate convention, the prohibition to admit ships of war of foreign Princes within the

The signatures to the Treaty of Paris were-for the United Kingdom, the Earl of Clarendon and Lord Cowley; for Austria, Count Buol-Shauenstein and Baron Hübner; for France, Count Walewski and Baron Bourqueney; for Prussia, Baron de Manteuffel and Comte de Hatzfeldt; for Russia, Count Orloff and Baron de Brunnow; for Sardinia, Count de Cavour and the Marquis de Villa. Marina; and for Turkey, Aali Pasha and Mehemmed Djemil Bey.

Straits of the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus was confirmed, and the Black Sea was declared neutralized, Russia and Turkey engaging not to establish or maintain upon its coast any military maritime arsenals, and to limit the number of war vessels within the same. By a Tripartite Treaty, moreover, England, France, and Austria bound themselves to guarantee, jointly and severally, the independence and integrity of the Ottoman Empire, any infraction of the stipulation of the Treaty to be considered by the signatory Powers as casus belli.

More important, however, than any dealing with the maladministration of the Sultan, and the checking of Russian extension southward, were certain valuable principles which were put forth by the representatives of the leading European Powers in Congress assembled. By Article VIII. of the Treaty of Peace, it was laid down that "if there should arise between the Sublime Porte and one or more of the signing Powers, any misunderstanding which might endanger the maintenance of their relations, the Sublime Porte and each of such Powers, before having recourse to the use of force, shall afford the other Contracting Parties the opportunity of preventing such an extremity by means of their mediation." A wish was further expressed in a Protocol of the Congress, "that States between which any serious misunderstanding may arise should, before appealing to arms, have recourse, as far as circumstances might allow, to the good offices of a

friendly Power." And by a declaration on International Maritime Law, signed by the Ministers of all the Powers represented at the Congress, and adhered to by many other States, the important principles were established: (1) that Privateering is and remains abolished: (2) that the neutral flag shall cover enemy's goods, with the exception of contraband of war; (3) that neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, shall not be liable to capture under enemy's flag; and (4) that blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective-that is to say, maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of the enemy.

Scarcely had the peace of Europe been re-established, when an event of far-reaching importance turned public attention to several Asiatic States. The commercial relations between the United Kingdom and China were carried on for a considerable time through the East India Company, by Agents who traded in China, not in the open market, but with the Co-hong Merchants licensed for that purpose. Two attempts were made-by Earl Macartney in 1794, and by Lord Amherst in 1806-to enter into direct communication with the Chinese Government, but they did not succeed. In 1833 the monopoly of the East India Company being ended, a Resident Commissioner or Superintendent of Trade was established at Canton. But difficulties arose, in consequence of the smuggling of opium into China by or with the connivance of

British traders from India, notwithstanding repeated proclamations by the Chinese Government against the same, which ended in war. By the Treaty of Nan-king of August 29, 1842, the adamantine walls which separated the Celestial Empire from the rest of the world were at last removed, and hopes were entertained that a better accord might thenceforth exist between the two Powers. But not many years after a quarrel arose respecting the opening of the Treaty ports, and the freedom and security of Christian missions, which caused another China war, in which France took part. By the Treaty of Tien-sing of June 26, 1858, all causes of contention were removed, and, as a pledge of more friendly and permanent relations between China and the Western Powers, provisions were made for the mutual maintenance of Embassies both at Peking and other capitals. Nor was the extension of political relations in the East allowed to be confined to China, for the Earl of Elgin, who conducted the negotiations with that country, proceeded forthwith to Japan, on an errand of peace. Already, in 1855, a Convention had been concluded by Sir James Sterling at Nagasaki, for regulating the admission of British ships in the ports of Japan; but the Earl of Elgin, by the Treaty of Yeddo, dated August, 1858, removed all obstacles in the way of regular relations between England and Japan, and provided for the maintenance of permanent Embassies in each other's kingdom.

D

Turning our attention from Asia to America, it was not without the deepest concern that, towards the end of 1860, Europe witnessed a serious insurrection in the United States-the Northern and Southern States being arrayed against each other, as in actual war. The insurrection ended with a restoration of the Union. But many were the questions of International Law thereby raised. The rebel States had formed themselves into a Confederation, representing a population of over 8,000,000, had established a Civil Government, had an army and were about constructing a navy. Was the Confederation a State capable of waging war with the United States, or were they only a people in rebellion? Did the fact of the two contending parties being practically, if not admittedly, at war, and the establishment of a blockade by the United States of the ports of the Confederate States, justify England and other States in granting belligerent rights to both sides? A British mail ship, having on board two diplomatic Agents of the Confederate States, on their way to Europe, was stopped by a United States cruiser, and the Agents were seized from the ship. Were they contraband of war? Is a mail ship a public ship? To what extent is the Government of a neutral State responsible for the sale or fitting out of war vessels for either belligerent by its subjects, after having cautioned them and taken care to execute the Laws in force relating thereto? The United States were at issue with the