and Recognition of Independence.

(a) There must be an actual armed struggle still continuing, and to all appearance likely to continue, between a body of rebels and the forces of their stategovernment; in other words, there must be a tangible revolt, coupled with no manifest likelihood of its immediate suppression.

(B) The body of rebels must be possessed of certain easily recognisable belligerent characteristics. They must be under the direction of an organised and responsible government. And that government must exercise authority within a determinate territory, and command a regular army prepared to observe the ordinary laws of war.

(7) The necessities of intercourse must compel action on the part of the recognising state. The locality of the site of belligerent operation will be in this regard the grand criterion'.

Recognition of Independence is matter for more mature consideration. The political effects of such recognition are all extensive and important. A mother country may well be trusted not to acknowledge the independence of rebels earlier than is absolutely necessary, but with neutrals the case is otherwise. With these sympathy and sentiment are only too apt to outrun reason and law. "The recognition," writes Mr Boyd, " of the independence "of Texas by the United States, although it preceded that "of other nations, did not take place till 1837, and all sub"stantial struggle with Mexico was over early in 1836. "But in the case of the Hungarian revolt in 1849 the "conduct of the United States in investing an agent in "Europe with power to declare the willingness of his "government promptly to recognise the independence of

1 For the case of the Recognition of the Confederate States by Great Britain, see Hall, International Law, pp. 31–34. Cf. Speeches by the Rt. Hon. John Bright, M.P., ed. Thorold Rogers, pp. 110 and 446.

2 For legal effects of Recognition see The City of Berne v. The Bank of England, 9 Ves. Jr. 347; Dolder v. The Bank of England, 10 Ves. Jr. 352; Dolder v. Lord Huntingfield, and St Didier v. Lord Huntingfield, 11 Ves. Jr. 283. Cf. Barclay v. Russell, 3 Ves. Jr. 424; Folliott v. Ogden, 3 D. and E. 726, and 1 H. Bl. 123.

"Hungary in the event of her ability to maintain it was unjustifiable towards Austria. The sympathy which the American people undoubtedly felt for the Hungarians "should not have been expressed officially, more especially "as the geographical position of both countries prevented "the United States being in any way concerned in the "matter'."

tion is

necessity,

Recognition of Independence to be rightful must not Recognigo beyond recognition. It must be an acknowledgment justified of an actual preexisting fact. To precipitate recognition, only by whether of Belligerency or of Independence, must be and necesregarded as an inimical act towards the original state- sity is a government, an act which may well be met by a declara- of fact. tion of war2.

question

nition of

ofthe South

When in 1825 Canning formally recognised the in- TheRecogdependence of the revolted South American colonies of the IndeSpain, his intention was in fact to seek compensation for pendence the preponderance of France in the Peninsula by "calling American "the New World into existence to redress the balance of by Great the Old3"; but his action was none the less capable of Britain ample justification. At the end of a struggle prolonged through fifteen years,-thanks largely to the assistance. afforded by British capitalists and by British bayonets trained in the battles of Wellington',-there remained no trace of Spanish dominion in Columbia, Chile or Buenos Ayres, and the power of the mother country was represented by but a trifling force in Mexico and Peru. English sympathies, which had been displayed in the most active fashion during the war, united with English commercial interests", which were largely involved, in

1 Wheaton, Elements of International Law, edited by A. C. Boyd, 1880, p. 38.

2 Letters of Historicus, p. 6. Kent's International Law, ed. Abdy, p. 57.

3 Alison, Hist. of Europe from the Fall of Napoleon, ii. pp. 715, 716. 4 Ibid. ii. p. 716.

5 Ibid. ii. pp. 620-622. British loans to the Liberal Government in Spain and to the governments in the revolted Spanish colonies between 1820 and 1850 amounted, according to Lord Palmerston, to the vast sum of £150,000,000.

and the United States

favour of an imitation of the example of the United States, which had recognised the independence of the (1822-1825) republics in 1822. Each of the revolted states now was amply justified by possessed its separate and regularly organised Governthe exist ment. England would, therefore, have been fully jusof affairs. tified had she granted recognition in 1822, when she

ing posture

Importance of Inter

Courtesy.

attempted to obtain from the Powers at Verona some assent to that course. The Duke of Wellington declared in a note to the assembled plenipotentiaries, that, while the connection subsisting between the subjects of Great Britain and other parts of the globe had long rendered it necessary for his sovereign to recognise the existence de facto of governments formed in different places, so far as was necessary to conclude treaties with them, the relaxation of the authority of Spain in her South American colonies had given rise to a host of pirates and adventurers -an insupportable evil, which it was impossible for England to extirpate without the aid of the local authorities of the adjacent coasts, she being thus forced to recognise de facto a number of self-created governments'. The four Powers, Austria, Prussia, France and Russia, however, held themselves aloof, and rightly, their interests not being involved in the same way as were those of Great Britain. Recognition by England followed in natural course, its delay being seemingly mainly accounted for by the anxiety of ministers to move with caution in view of the critical condition of affairs on the Continent.

International courtesy is an all-important factor in international politics. The monarch in the days of chinational valry was prompt to defend his honour. The honour of the prince has now become the honour of the nation; and the history of the international relations of republican States, of the United States and the United Provinces, hardly encourages the idea that Democracy is less quick to take umbrage and resent insult than the proud hereditary

1 Alison, Hist. of Europe from the Fall of Napoleon, ii. p. 629.

2 Hall, International Law, pp. 75-77. Kent's International Law, ed. Abdy, pp. 97-100.

ruler. The late Sackville episode (1888) has doubtless many aspects, but, in a more favourable light, it affords an example of national solidity of feeling1.

States, like individuals, have their reputations to establish and sustain. The Primacy of the Great Powers is an accepted fact in modern politics; but the governors of mighty empires can no more now than in the days of the Balance of Power afford to set at nought the general public opinion of the minor states. There is a moral force abroad which can make pause even the irresponsible master of two million splendid fighting men. The Press has become a power, and, thanks to telephone and electric The current, the reasons and resolutions guiding a Cabinet a Cabinet rapidity of to-day are known and criticised to-morrow throughout the communilength and breadth of a dozen kingdoms. On the one adds to the hand, neither state nor individual can act with impunity necessity in entire disregard of the force of social disapprobation: national on the other, the slightest show of disrespect, be it con- reputa

1 Cf. the cases of M. Gênet in 1793, Mr Jackson in 1809, and Mr Crampton in 1856. For instances of the pretensions of the United Provinces, see Wicquefort, pp. 228 and 230.

2 The power of the Press is not an unmixed blessing. Mawkish sentiment may be doubtful humanity. General more truly humane than Wellington never commanded an army; yet he wrote: "To offer a public "reward by proclamation for a man's life, and to make a secret bargain "to have it taken away, are very different things; the one is to be done, "the other, in my opinion, cannot, by an officer at the head of the troops."

66

Col. Wellesley to Lieut.-Col. Close, 8 July, 1800. Dispatches 13. But when a British naval officer in our day set a price by proclamation on the head of the Mahdi,—a proceeding which might, if sustained, have preserved some thousands of not wholly worthless lives, an indignant British public secured the prompt recall of the inhuman offer. Nor were there wanting humane persons to condemn in no measured terms in the columns of the British press the shooting down of the advanceguard of hordes of invading Arabs as the slaughter of "poor savages "rightly struggling to be free."

"Even the very clemency of one age appears cruelty to the more "compassionate feelings of the next." (Stanhope.) It may be that our descendants may deem self-defence a crime.

3 "The nation which has been a party to a general system of interna"tional law, becomes an outlaw to all nations if it breaks its engagement "towards any one" (Cobden). Speeches of Richard Cobden, p. 460.

modern

cation

for care of

tion.

Disputes

as to pre

tempt of a flag or neglect to return a salute, can hardly fail in the present day of wide and instantaneous circulation, and of corresponding resentment. It was not without reason that the colossal genius of Leibnitz could be content to debate through a couple of hundred quarto pages a disputed point of international etiquette'. A perfect knowledge of, and a perfect care for, the requirements of international courtesy are an all-essential equipment of every national official'.

Disputes as to the precedence of Ambassadors formerly cedence. frequently assumed the dignity of national struggles and defeated the best efforts of diplomacy3.

The great contest of

A great contest of the kind between the representaFrance tives of France and Spain, arising out of the pretensions and Spain. of Philip II. to exact the precedence formerly accorded to

1563 A.D.

1661 A.D.

his imperial father, Charles V., disturbed the peace of every Court in Europe for more than a century, and led from time to time to scenes of disorderly and excited brawling*.

This dispute well-nigh brought about a new papal schism in the later sessions of the Council of Trent, interrupting with an unseemly wrangle before the very altar the high religious function of Saint Peter's Day (1563). It culminated in 1661 in a wild fray in the streets of London between the suites of the rival embassies. The Count D'Éstrades and the Baron de Vatteville were at the time of this last the respective representatives of France and Spain at the Court of St James's. The Swedish ambassador, Count Brahe, being about to make his public entry, the various foreign resident ministers, in accordance

1 Manning, Law of Nations, p. 31.

2 In all that concerns the rights and duties of public ministers, Wicquefort's "Rights, Privileges, and Office of Embassadors and Public "Ministers" is a perfect mine of ancient precedent. See also G. F. de Martens, Précis du Droit des Gens, Lib. IV. ch. 2. Two volumes of Rousset's Supplement to the Corps Universel of Dumont are taken up by an account of the ceremonial of European Courts.

3 Wicquefort, chaps. 24 and 25.

Ibid. pp. 209–220.