tached to them, however, the condition that Mehemet Ali should accept them within the space of ten days after communication thereof made to him, and that he should give the necessary instructions to withdraw his land and sea forces from all other parts of the Ottoman empire not comprised within the limits of Egypt and the pashalic of Acre.

2. If Mehemet Ali did not accept the above arrangement within the term prescribed, the Sultan would then withdraw the offer of the life administration of the Pashalic of Acre; but would still consent to grant him the hereditary administration of the Pashalic of Egypt, provided his acceptance should be signified within another further term of ten days, and provided he consented to withdraw his military and naval forces within the limits of that pashalic.

3. The annual tribute to be paid to the Sultan by Mehemet Ali should be proportioned to the greater or less amount of territory of which the latter, might obtain the administration, according as he accepted the first or second alternative.

4. It was understood that in either alternative, Mehemet Ali should be bound to deliver up the Turkish fleet to the agent of the Sultan before the expiration of the specific period of ten or twenty days.

5. All the treaties and all the laws of the Ottoman empire to be applicable to Egypt in the same manner as to every other part of the Ottoman empire. But the Sultan consented, that on condition of the regular payment of the tribute above mentioned, Mehemet Ali and his descendents should collect, in the name and as the delegate of the Sultan, the taxes and imposts legally established; it being moreover understood that the Pasha should defray all the expenses of the civil and military administration.

6. The military and naval forces maintained by the Pasha, forming part of the forces of the Ottoman empire, should always be considered as maintained for the service of the state.

7. If, at the expiration of twenty days after communica

tion made to Mehemet Ali (according to the 2d stipulation) he should not accede to the proposed arrangement by accepting the hereditary Pashalic of Egypt, the Sultan would consider himself at liberty to withdraw that offer, and to follow in consequence, such ulterior course as his own interests, and the counsels of his allies might suggest to him.

Mehemet Ali having refused to accept the above mentioned arrangement within the term prescribed, sentence of deprivation of his pashalics was formally pronounced against him by the Porte; and the treaty of the 15th July was carried into execution by expelling the Egyptian forces from Syria, Candia, and Arabia, and those provinces were restored to the Sultan. Mehemet Ali having subsequently made his submission, the sentence of deprivation was revoked, and the hereditary Pashalic of Egypt was conferred upon him, by an imperial firman, upon conditions substantially the same with those contained in the separate act annexed to the treaty.

the Darda

The objects of the treaty having been thus accomplished, § 32. Treaty the plenipotentiaries of the four great powers, contracting of the 13th July, 1841, reparties to the same, assembled in the conference of London lating to the on the 10th July, 1841, and signed a protocol, stating that entrance of the difficulties in which the Sultan was placed, and which nelles and Bosphorus by decided him to apply for the support and assistance of Aus- foreign ships tria, Great Britain, Prussia, and Russia, being now removed of war. and Mehemet Ali having made towards the Sultan the act of submission which the treaty was designed to bring about, the representatives of the courts parties to the same had considered, that independently of the execution of the temporary measures resulting from that convention, it was essential to record in the most formal manner, the respect due to the ancient rule of the Ottoman empire, in virtue of which it had been at all times prohibited for ships of war of foreign powers to enter into the straits of the Dardanelles and of

* Correspondence, pt. i. p. 691–697.

the Bosphorus. This arrngement being from its nature one of general and permanent application, the respective plenipotentiaries, provided with the orders of their courts to this effect, had been of opinion, that in order to manifest the agreement and union which regulate the intentions of all the courts in what concerns the maintenance of the peace of Europe, it would be proper to record the respect which is due to the above mentioned principle, by means of an arrangement in which France should be invited to concur, at the invitation and agreeably to the wish of the Sultan. This arrangement being calculated to afford to Europe a pledge of the union of the five powers, her Britannic majesty's principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, agreeably to an understanding with the plenipotentiaries of the four powers, undertook to bring the matter to the knowledge of the French government, requesting it to take part in such an arrangement.y

A convention was accordingly concluded at London on the 13th July, 1841, between the five great European powers and the Ottoman Porte; by the first article of which the Sultan on one part, declared his firm resolution to maintain, in future, the principle invariably established as the ancient rule of his empire; and that so long as the Porte should be at peace, he would admit no foreign vessel of war into the said straits. The five powers, on the other part, engaged to respect this determination of the Sultan, and to conform to the above-mentioned principle.

By the 2d article it was provided that in declaring the inviolability of this ancient rule of the Ottoman empire, the Sultan reserved the faculty of granting as heretofore firmans allowing the passage to light armed vessels employed according to usage in the service of the diplomatic legations of friendly powers.

By the 3d article the Sultan also reserved the faculty of

y Correspondence, pt. iii. p. 474.

notifying to all the powers in amity with the Sublime Porte the convention, and of inviting them to accede to it.

By this act the principle of the law of nations relating to territorial jurisdiction over adjoining seas, as applicable to the interior waters of the Ottoman empire, became incorporated into the written public law of Europe.

§ 33. cussions

tween

Dis

be

the

African slave

The war declared by the United States against Great Britain in 1812 originated in the same controverted questions of the maritime law of nations, relating to the re- American and British gospective rights of belligerent and neutral states, which had veruments regiven rise to the armed alliance of the northern powers of lating to the right of search Europe against Great Britain in 1780 and 1800. The for the supUnited States complained of the capture and confiscation pression of the of their vessels under the rule of the war of 1756 relating trade. to the colonial and coasting trade of an enemy, and under the British orders in council establishing a blockade of the European continent, in alleged retaliation of the French decrees of Berlin and Milan declaring the British islands in a state of blockade. Besides this interruption of their neutral commerce, the United States also alleged, as the ground of hostilities, the impressment of their seamen from on board their vessels on the high seas, under the pretext of exercising the right of search for British subjects in virtue of the municipal laws of Great Britain. The war, commenced on these grounds, was terminated by the treaty of peace concluded at Ghent in 1814, on the basis of the status quo ante bellum, whilst the questions of maritime law in which the war had originated were passed over in complete silence.

The treaty of Ghent declared (art. 10) that "whereas the traffic in slaves is irreconcileable with the principles of humanity and justice: and whereas both his Britannic majesty and the United States are desirous of continuing their efforts to promote its entire abolition, it is hereby agreed that both the contracting parties shall use their best endeavours to accomplish so desirable an object."

It will be remembered that a similar declaration relating

to the African slave trade had been adopted by the congress of Vienna about the same time. As the subject matter of these declarations ultimately led to serious discussions between the American and British governments, growing out of the former, of the right of visitation and search to the suppression of the slave trade, it becomes necessary for the elucidation of the question to revert to the origin and progress of the trade so far as the United States and Great Britain are both concerned.

The testimony of authentic history attests the notorious facts, that the African slave trade was carried on by the British nation for more than two centuries under the patronage of its government, and protected by charters of monopoly and public treaties, not for the supply of their own colonies merely, but those of France and Spain, before even the slightest effort had been made to awaken the public mind to a sense of its enormous iniquity. Under the first Stuart kings of England, charters were granted incorporating joint-stock companies, endowed with the exclusive privilege of carrying on trade with Africa. The operations of these companies were sustained by all the power and patronage of the British government, both in legislative measures and diplomatic acts. The memorable treaty of Utrecht, 1713,-by which the Spanish succession-war was terminated, the balance of power in Europe confirmed, and the maritime law of nations definitively settled,—so far as depending on conventions, granted "to her Britannic majesty, and to the company of her subjects established for that purpose (the South Sea Company,) as well the subjects of Spain, as all others being excluded, the contract for introducing negroes into several parts of the dominions of his Catholic majesty in America (commonly called El

z Vide ante, § 19.