We have now glanced through the significations and the applications of some of the forms employed in international communications, and can pass on, at last, to the great, the essential subject of diplomacy, to the ultimate reason of its action-treaties. But here it must at once be owned, that if we were to limit our attention to the forms which European treaties have generally assumed, we should find them very dull and business-like, with scarcely anything in them that looks like vanity of talk, especially during the last two centuries. They offer but little curious wording, with no conceits and no pretensions of composition; and if there were not a special field open to our observation outside Christianity, we should have to leave out this element of the subject altogether, for its European aspects would not contribute anything-or at least scarcely anything -to the study of international vanities. But when we look into the treaty-forms employed by the Mohammedan powers, or by certain small barbarians whose names are unknown to history, we find strange phrases and odd imaginations which contribute most abundantly to the general catalogue of the world's pride. Before we quote examples of those types of wordings, it may, however, be as well to indicate a few of the main details connected with the actual preparation of European treaties. And first of all, it is worth while to note that, properly, the word Treaty is applied exclusively to political and commercial objects; while the less pretentious though longer denomination of Convention is bestowed on special agreements of all kinds - as, for instance, international arrangements about postage, telegraphs, or literary rights. should also be observed that, in modern times, a marked tendency

It

has grown up to simplify the phras ings and the forms of treaties. The religious invocations, the long enumerations of the titles of the high contracting parties, with which, in former days, treaties invariably commenced, have now almost disappeared in Europe. In our day of freedom from all prejudice, ambassadors and their employers rarely think it necessary to place their work under divine protection; they have very nearly given up the once universal heading, "In the name of the Most Holy and indivisible Trinity." The Paris treaty of 1856 is almost the only one made in this generation which contains any dedication; it begins, exceptionally, with the words, "Au nom de Dieu tout Puissant." This oriental form was, however, probably adopted out of compliment to the prejudices of Turkey-the only party to the treaty which seems to retain a sentiment of the utility of an external recognition of divine guardianship. Christian powers-judging from their present general practice - consider such ejaculations as quite out of place in international agreements. There was a time when, in addition to the heading, treaties generally contained a preamble of prayer; but since the Peace of Utrecht that sort of prologue has gone out of fashion. The document signed on that occasion began with the following sentence: "Considering that it has pleased the Almighty and Merciful God, for the glory of His holy name, and for the peace of the human race, to inspire princes with the reciprocal desire of reconciliation." In our days we go straight to the subject-matter, without stopping on the road to invoke considerations which, we evidently suppose, are better in their place in a prayer-book. Mussulmans think otherwise, as we shall see directly. Another and more comprehen

sible simplification is the suppression of the practice of giving hostages for the execution of a treaty. It is not much more than a hundred years ago, however, that England sent several peers to Paris, on the conclusion of the Treaty of Aix-laChapelle, as security for the restoration of Cape Breton to France. Signatures, too, have become easy to arrange, since the system of alphabetical order has been adopted; but in former times, when the fight for precedence was at its height, this element of the subject was a cause of grievous difficulty. The plan then was, to arrange the signatures in two columns: the top place in the right column (in the heraldic sense of right—that is to say, the reader's left) was the place of honour; the top place in the other column was the second, and so on alternately.

The conditions of validity of treaties constitute a form of a large and special kind. The first of those conditions is, that a treaty shall be in conformity with the laws of every state which is a party to it; free and reciprocal consent constitutes the second condition; possibility of execution is the third (it should be explained that previous engagements or damage to the rights of a third party create impracticability of execution). A treaty signed by plenipotentiaries is valid if the signers have not exceeded their powers; and no posterior ratification is required, unless-which, however, is usually the case-it is expressly reserved in the treaty itself. Rigorously, an act of ratification ought to reproduce the entire treaty; but in modern practice, especially in German chanceries, the title, preamble, and first and last article, are alone transcribed. Another detail is, that the action of a treaty commences at its date, without reference to the date of the ratification. A treaty concluded by a sovereign

while he is a prisoner of war is not considered by the publicists to be binding on the state: it is regarded simply as a "sponsion," which is an engagement to do one's best to obtain the ratification of the state. Some authors go infinitely beyond this, and allege that all treaties made with vanquished nations are, by their very nature, null; not exactly because they are imposed by force, but because one of the parties to them is considered as not possessing its full rights, and to be consequently incapable, legally, of giving its complete consent. This view supplies another example of the subtle, seeking, twisting spirit of the writers on International Law, and helps to make us think, as a good many people wisely do, that in reality, notwithstanding all the volumes that have been composed about it, there is no such thing as International Law at all. Theoretically a treaty is inviolable: all the authors talk of the sanctitas pactorum gentium publicorum; of pacta æterna et realia; the practical meaning of all which is, that, though it is very wrong indeed, states do sometimes put an end to treaties.

It may be said that, in principle, all treaties are made by plenipotentiaries. There are, however, some examples of the contrary,-of the direct intervention of monarchs; the latest case on record being the Holy Alliance of 1815, which was personally agreed in Paris between the sovereigns of Austria, Russia, and Prussia. Most of the other European Powers adhered to it later on; but England remained outside it, because the Prince Regent was prevented by the Constitution from accepting a treaty which was not signed by a responsible Minister. But whether treaties be negotiated by an Emperor or an Envoy, they cannot escape from the classification of the formalists; they

must belong to one of the five admitted species-principal, lesser principal, accessary, additional, or subsidiary! And lest unimaginative persons should hastily and imprudently imagine that these five categories include all the definitions of bargains between nations, let it be at once declared that, according to the very latest writers, there are seventeen other sorts, each of which is susceptible of individual subdivisions to an almost indefinite extent, as will be seen by a reference to the text-books. These seventeen main secondary classifications are,-treaties of peace; of guarantee; of protection; of neutrality; of alliance (offensive or defensive); of friendship; of subsidy; of association; of confederation; of limits and frontiers; of cession or exchange; of jurisdiction; of navigation and commerce; of extradition; of literary, artistic, and industrial property; of posts, telegraphs, or railways; and of religion (concordats). It will be recognised that the ground is large. Missionary enterprise is generally considered to offer much diversity of occupation to those who follow it, in consequence of the extreme variety of sorts of pagans; but really this list indicates that diplomatists have before them a field of action which presents an almost equal choice.

Now we can go on to the examples of Eastern forms. There are a great many of them in the collections of treaties, but it is not difficult to pick out those which supply the completest types of the various classes of composition. One main feature strikes us in them all;Asiatics employ religious language in their treaties with a persistence and an earnestness of which no example exists elsewhere; but, unfortunately, they do not limit themselves to prayer and to legitimate appeals for divine protection,-they

go a very long way further, and mix up official vanity and official piety with a thoroughness of promiscuity which Europeans have never practised with the same perfection in public documents. The difference between Mussulmans and ourselves on this point is, that what they do nationally we do individually. In reality there is vastly more of this peculiar mixture with us than with them, only we use it differently: they put it into treaties, while we exhibit it in pews: with them it is an article for state use in dealing with other countries; with us, the operation of amalgamating vainglory and devotion is triumphantly performed all over England every Sunday morning by gentlemen and ladies acting for their own account. How much better it would be if we left it to the Government, as the Turks do!

Of all the models of a purely oriental document, the renewal made in 1740 of the capitulations between France and Turkey is certainly the most complete and striking; of all the specimens of its class, it is the most florid and the most exaggerated. It may therefore be indicated as a thoroughly typical example of the official phraseology of the East, and its preamble, though it is very long, may be usefully translated here. The document is headed by a star, and then begins :

"The Emperor Sultan Mahmoud, son of the Sultan Moustapha, always victorious.

"This is what is ordered by this glorious and imperial sign, conqueror of the world, this noble and sublime mark, the efficacity of which proceeds from the divine assistance.

"I, who by the excellence of the infinite favours of the Most High, and by the eminence of the miracles filled with benediction of the chief of the prophets (to whom be

the most ample salutations, as well as to his family and his companions), am the Sultan of the glorious Sultans; the Emperor of the powerful Emperors; the distributor of crowns to the Cosroes who are seated upon thrones; the shade of God upon earth; the servitor of the two illustrious and noble towns of Mecca and Medina, august and sacred places, where all Mussulmans offer up their prayers; the protector and master of holy Jerusalem; the sovereign of the three great towns of Constantinople, Adrianople, and Brusa, as also of Damascus, the odour of Paradise; of Tripoli in Syria; of all Arabia; of Africa; of Barca," . . . and eight other cities, "particularly of Bagdad, capital of the Caliphs; of Erzeroum the delicious," ... and eleven other places; "of the isles of Morea, Candia, Cyprus, Chio, and Rhodes; of Barbary and Ethiopia; of the war fortresses of Algiers, Tripoli, and Tunis; of the isles and shores of the White and the Black Sea; of the country of Natolia and the kingdoms of Roumelia; of all Kurdistan and Greece; of Turcomania, Tartary, Circassia, Cabarta, and Georgia; of the noble tribes of Tartars, and of all the hordes which depend thereon; of Caffa and other surrounding districts; of all Bosnia and its dependencies; of the fortress of Belgrade, place of war; of Servia, and also of the fortresses or castles which are there; of the countries of Albania; of all Walachia and Moldavia, and of the forts and battlements which are in those provinces; possessor, finally, of a vast number of towns and fortresses, the names of which it is unnecessary to enumerate and boast of here; I, who am the Emperor, the asylum of justice, and the king of kings, the centre of victory, the Sultan son of Sultans, the Emperor Mahmoud, son of Sultan Mous

tapha, son of Sultan Muhammed; I, who, by my power, origin of felicity, am ornamented with the title of Emperor of the two Earths, and, to fill up the glory of my Caliphat, am made illustrious by the title of Emperor of the two Seas."

There ends the description of the Turkish monarch: the document then turns westward, and begins to designate the King of France, who is catalogued as follows: "The glory of the great princes of the faith of Jesus; the highest of the great and the magnificent of the religion of the Messiah; the arbitrator and the mediator of the affairs of Christian nations; clothed with the true marks of honour and of dignity; full of grandeur, of glory, and of majesty; the Emperor of France and of the other vast kingdoms which belong thereto; our most magnificent, most honoured, sincere, and ancient friend, Louis XV., to whom may God accord all success and happiness, having sent to our august Court, which is the seat of the Caliphat"-(here we revert to Turkey)" a letter containing evidences of the most perfect sincerity, and of the most particular affection, candour, and straightforwardness; and the said letter being destined to our Sublime Porte of felicity, which, by the infinite goodness of the incontestably majestic Supreme Being, is the asylum of the most magnificent Sultans, and of the most respectable Emperors; the model of Christian Seigneurs, able, prudent, esteemed, and honoured minister, Louis, Marquis de Villeneuve, his Councillor of State and his Ambassador to our Porte of felicity (may the end thereof be filled up with joy), has demanded the permission to present and hand in the aforesaid letter, which has been granted to him by our imperial consent, conformably to the ancient usage of our Court; and conse

quently, the said ambassador having been admitted before our imperial throne, surrounded with light and glory, he has given in the aforesaid letter, and has been witness of our Majesty in participating in our power and imperial grace; and then the translation of its loving meaning has been presented, according to the ancient custom of the Ottomans, at the foot of our sublime throne, by the channel of the most honourable El Hadji Mehemmed Pacha, our first Minister; the absolute interpreter of our ordinances; the ornament of the world; the preserver of good order amongst peoples; the ordainer of the grades of our Empire; the instrument of the glory of our crown; the road of the grace of royal majesty; the very virtuous Grand Vizier; very venerable and fortunate Minister, lieutenant - general, whose power and prosperity may God cause to triumph and to endure." Then begins the treaty, which goes on through eighty-five articles, and finishes with these words: "On the part of our imperial Majesty I engage myself, under our most sacred and most inviolable august oath, both for our sacred imperial person and for our august successors, as well as for our imperial viziers, our honoured pachas, and, generally, all our illustrious servitors who have the honour and the felicity to be in our slavery, that nothing shall ever be permitted contrary to the present articles."

The English capitulations, which were signed at the Dardanelles in 1809, contain some wording of the same kind, but they are not comparable to the foregoing; nowhere else, indeed, do we find another example at all approximating to the superb bombast of this one. The Persian wordings do not approach its outrageous vanity, but speci

mens of them are worth giving. The firman of the Shah annexed to the treaty of 1801 with Great Britain begins with "The earth is the Lord's. Our august commands are issued that the high in rank, the exalted in station, the great rulers, &c., do cheerfully comply and execute the sense and meaning of what has been established." And the treaty of 1814 commences with a sentence which merits mention: its heading is, "Praise be to God, the all-perfect and all-sufficient. These happy leaves are a nosegay plucked from the thornless garden of concord, and tied by the hands of the plenipotentiaries of the two great states in the form of a definitive treaty, in which the articles of friendship and amity are blended." In another place a firman is spoken of as being "equal to a decree of fate," which is a somewhat strong simile, even for a Persian. The Persian

style does not grow modern, it keeps up its local colour; for even as late as the year 1855, in the treaty then made with France, we find the following designations: "In the name of the clement and merciful God. His High Majesty, the Emperor Napoleon, whose elevation is like that of the planet Saturn; to whom the sun serves as a standard; the luminous star of the firmament of crowned heads; the sun of the heaven of royalty; the ornament of the diadem; the splendour of standards, imperial ensigns; the illustrious and liberal monarch ;-and his majesty elevated like the planet Saturn; the sovereign to whom the sun serves as a standard; whose splendour and magnificence are like those of the heavens; the Sublime Sovereign; the Monarch whose armies are as numerous as the stars; whose greatness recalls that of Djemschid; whose magnificence equals that of Darius, heir of the crown and