That is the principle of the Balance of Power, but it is very much less frequently urged just now in Parliament and elsewhere than it used to be. It seems to be admitted that it is a dangerous principle, and to a certain extent it is even a selfish principle. However there are certain limitations Its limitathat have become attached to it, and I think those limitations, as given by Woolsey, explain the force of their principle itself at the present time. Some of these limitations I quote from Mr. Woolsey as follows:

"That acquisitions outside of Europe have not hitherto "been drawn into this policy. England has by degrees "become a predominant power in several parts of the world "without provoking the interference of the Continent. The

reason is, that foreign acquisitions affect the political "balance only in an indirect way. The system has been ap"plied to power on the land, and not much to power on the "sea. England has acquired, undisturbed, a great predominance on the sea, while the balance of power has been in "full exercise. The reason is obvious. Power on the sea "cannot directly control the political relations of Europe, nor destroy the independence of States. The system has "not yet been carried out beyond the borders of the Euro66 pean States, Turkey included. The reason is, that the "transatlantic States have not only come at a recent period "into the European international system, but can, as yet, “have no appreciable influence in European affairs."

sc

These are some of the limitations of that principle.

tions.

Another principle has been that of humanity. Plea of When there has been a certain amount of violent Human ty. disorder or misgovernment in a State, it has been. thought sometimes to be the moral Right, if not the moral Duty, of other States to interfere and to

try to remedy a condition of things under which humanity itself is suffering. The only difficulty in the way of the application of that principle is that States are apt to interpret the claims of humanity by making it demand whatever most favours their own interests. Therefore the assertion of such grounds of interference as humanity, or the Balance of Power, is always likely to be prompted by selfish and one-sided motives.

Instances of But, as a matter of fact, humanity has been conthe plea of “Humanity.” sidered a ground for interference; and I will give one or two instances of that. Perhaps the most recent one is from Greece, and Woolsey gives the facts in a more brief and practical way than, perhaps, any other writer. He says (page 73):

"The interference of Great Britain, France, and Russia, "on behalf of the Greeks in 1827, was avowedly dictated by motives of humanity. The Greeks, after a bloody " contest, had so far achieved their independence, that the "Sultan could not reduce them. Accordingly his vassal, "Mehemed Ali of Egypt, was allured to send an army of "subjugation into the Morea, and the atrocious scenes of "fanatical war were renewed. The Greeks applied to "France and England for help or mediation. At length, "in consequence of the battle of Navarino, October 20th, "1827, and the French occupation of the Morea, the "Peninsula was evacuated by Mahometan troops, and finally "the independence of Greece was acknowledged."

Dr. Wheaton, commenting on this, in his "Elements of International Law," part II. chapter I., exactly explains what I have been speaking of. He says:

"The Christian powers were eminently justified in their

"interference to rescue a whole nation not merely from "religious persecution, but from the cruel alternative of "being transported from their native land into Egyptian "bondage or exterminated by their merciless oppressors. "The rights of human nature-wantonly outraged by this "cruel warfare-were but tardily and imperfectly vindicated "by this measure, but its principle was fully justified by "the great paramount law of self-preservation. Whatever a "nation may lawfully defend for itself, it may lawfully "defend for another if called on to interpose."

venting

Another ground for interference has been even Plea of prestill more vague than that of humanity, namely the Revolution. mere prevention of revolution. This pretext came in especially at the close of the first French Revolution, when several of the powers of Europe joined together in forming a Holy Alliance, and afterwards in another movement of the same kind, simply in order to keep down the democratic spirit which was beginning to disturb the old monarchical institutions of Europe. That was the real ground; although the alleged ground was the protection of religion or the general protection of public order.

"During the occupation of Paris," says Mr. Woolsey, The Holy (page 65), "consequent on the Battle of Waterloo, the Alliance. "three rulers of Russia, Austria, and Prussia, joined after"wards by the French King, formed the Holy Alliance, "which has been regarded as a league of absolutism against "the Rights and the freedom of the Nations. This "famous league, however, at its inception, appears to have "had no definite object in view. The parties to "the Holy Alliance bound themselves, appealing to the Holy Trinity, to exercise their power according to the principles of religion, justice, and humanity; to afford one "another on all occasions aid and help; to treat their

The Congress of Aix-laChapelle.

Plea of the Monroe doctrine.

"6 subjects and soldiers with paternal feeling, and to regard "their people as members of a great Christian family, whose "guidance was entrusted to them by God."

See also Manning's "Law of Nations," pages 82-84.

The Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle (September 29th, 1818), furnishes another instance of a combination of States, having a similar end in view. Woolsey says of it:

66

Mr.

"The Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle, at which the five Great "Powers were represented, and which removed the Army of Occupation from the French fortresses, effected an alliance almost as vague as the Holy Alliance, which, according to some of the parties to it, was intended to exercise a supervisory power over European affairs, interfering to prevent "all dangerous revolutions, especially when they should proceed from popular movements. They declared, however, "their intention to observe scrupulously the Law of Nations, "The Sovereigns have regarded,' say they, as the funda"mental basis, their resolution never to depart, either "among themselves or in their relations with other States, "from the strictest observance of the Law of Nations,— "principles which, in their application to a state of "permanent peace, are alone able to give an effectual "guaranty to the independence of each Government, and "to the stability of their general association.'

Another very peculiar ground of interference has been that asserted by the Americans, according to what has been called the Monroe doctrine, promulgated by President Monroe, in his annual message in 1823. It has been doubted very much by American writers whether this doctrine is really a sound one; but I will show what the true purport of the doctrine was in the terms of the message itself. In effect it stated in the first place that European

powers were not to interfere in any way with the Governments of the States established on the American continent, an expression having especially in view the attempt by the Spanish to interfere with the Governments of their own colonies; and in the second place the doctrine declared that the American continent was no longer to be used as a field for colonisation for Europe. President Monroe President said:

"We should consider any attempt on the part (of the "Allied Powers) to extend their system to any portion of "this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety," and "we could not view any interposition for the purpose of 66 oppressing Governments on this side of the Atlantic whose "independence we had acknowledged, or controlling in any manner their destiny, by any European Power, in any "other light than as a manifestation of an unfriendly dis"position towards the United States."

66

That forms one part of the doctrine; the other part was as follows (again quoting from the President's message) :—

"The occasion has been judged proper for asserting as a principle, in which the Rights and interests of the United "States are involved, that the American Continents, by the "free and independent condition which they have assumed "and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as sub"jects for future colonisation by any European power."

That is enough to show with clearness what the Monroe doctrine is. You often find it alluded to in controversies respecting the rights of interference, and this is what it comes to. The validity of the doctrine is much doubted because the continent

Monroe's
Message.