most civilized countries." (Wheaton's International Law, 8th ed., p. 138.)

The treaties with France of 1778 and 1800 stipulated for the abolition of these rights. And treaties on this subject were concluded with Bavaria, 1845, Grand Duchy of Hesse, 1844, Nassau, 1846, Saxony, 1845. Swiss Confederation, 1847, and Würtemberg, 1844. A large number of treaties contain provisions respecting the right to dispose of real property.

TRADE-MARKS.

Conventions for the protection of trade-marks have been concluded with Russia, 1868 and 1874, France, 1869, Austria-Hungary, 1871, German Empire, 1871, Great Britain, 1877, Brazil, Italy, 1882, Spain, 1882; also an article in the treaty with Belgium, 1884.

In these conventions, it is stipulated, that if citizens of either country fulfil the formalities required by the laws of the respective States in respect of trade-marks, they shall have the same rights therein as native citizens.

A treaty for the general protection of Industrial Property was entered into, March 20, 1883, by Belgium, Brazil, France, Guatemala, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Salvador, Serbia, Spain, Switzerland, and acceded to by Dominican Republic, Great Britain, Sweden and Norway, The United States, and Tunis.

PROTECTION OF SUBMARINE CABLES.

A convention for the protection of submarine cables was concluded at Paris, March 14, 1884, nearly all the European and American States taking part.

PART II.

TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY.

THE MONROE DOCTRINE.

"THE SO-called Monroe Doctrine, at the time it was announced was partly a measure of self-defense against the threatened aggression of the European Alliance, and partly the expression of the natural antagonism between the principles of free government, as exemplified by the history of the United States, and the principles of monarchical despotism, as exhibited in the policy of the four great powers of continental Europe.

The treaty of Vienna gave peace to Europe; but it restored the despotism of the old régime in all the countries of continental Europe with the exception of France. The liberal ideas and aspirations awakened by the French revolution and the wars of Napoleon were suppressed; and that they should remain forever suppressed was the firm determination of the monarchs of these countries. In England, on the other hand, when the fear of French ascendency was removed, a strong liberal reaction set in which forced the government in the end to break with its continental allies.

The treaty which formed the basis of the European Alliance -erroneously termed Holy Alliance-was signed at Chaumont, in France, on March 1, 1814.1 This was a union of the four powers-Austria, Russia, Prussia, and England-primarily for the efficient prosecution of the war; and secondarily, to maintain the peace of Europe in the future. It was renewed and made permanent by the treaty of alliance signed at Vienna by the same powers, March 25, 1815; and after the second fall 1 Hertslet: Map of Europe by Treaty, p. 2043.

of Napoleon, at Waterloo, it was reaffirmed and continued, with some additions by the treaty of alliance at Paris, November 20, 1815.1

The preamble of this treaty contains the following declaration:

"Desirous moreover of drawing closer the ties which unite them (the four powers) for the common interests of their peoples, [they] have resolved to give to the principles solemnly laid down in the treaties of Chaumont and Vienna the application the most analogous to the present state of affairs, and to fix beforehand the principle which they propose to follow in order to guarantee Europe from dangers by which she may still be menaced."

Then follow in five articles the details providing for any future renewal of the disturbance of Europe by Napoleon or France. By the sixth article the powers agree to renew their meetings at fixed periods. And before separating the first of those meetings was fixed for the year 1818.

In accordance with this agreement at Paris, these powers met in the conference of Aix-la-Chapelle, in October, 1818.2 At this conference the evacuation of French territory by the allied armies was decreed, and France was admitted as a member of the alliance, thus completing the grand alliance of the five great powers. After transacting certain business and providing for future meetings, a declaration, setting forth the principles by which they would be guided, was issued. It is proclaimed that the intimate union of the monarchs offers to Europe the most sacred pledge of its future tranquillity. "It has no other object than the maintenance of peace, and the guarantee of those transactions on which the peace was founded and consolidated. * * * The repose of the world will be constantly their motive and their end."

The language of this declaration is extremely vague; and the English representatives seemed to regard it as harmless. Lord Bathurst (acting Foreign Secretary) wrote to Castlereagh, November 10, "You have so neutralized the protocol and declaration, that there cannot be any objection, I imagine, from any quarter against them." The English cabinet had feared that there might be something in these acts which it 2 Hertslet, I., 571.

1 Hertslet, I., 372.

would be difficult to explain in parliament. "The Russian must be made to feel," said Lord Liverpool, "that we have a parliament and a public, to which we are responsible, and that we cannot permit ourselves to be drawn into views of policy which are wholly incompatible with the spirit of our government." There was one member of the cabinet, however, who was opposed to the whole scheme of the European alliance; this was Canning. Lord Bathurst, in writing to Castlereagh, October 20, says that the Cabinet are opposed to the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle publicly announcing continued meetings of the allied powers at fixed points. The next meeting might be fixed but no others. The Cabinet, except Canning, are not averse to the system, but to the publicly announcing it. Canning objects to the system itself. "He does not consider the 9th article as having been generally understood to apply to any meetings except for the purpose of watching the internal. state of France, as far as it may endanger the public tranquillity. He thinks the system of periodical meetings of the four great powers, with a view to the general concerns of Europe, new, and a very questionable policy; that it will necessarily involve us deeply in all the politics of the continent, whereas our true policy has always been not to interfere except in great emergencies, and then with a commanding force. He thinks that all other states must protest against such an attempt to place them under subjection; that the meetings may become a scene of cabal and intrigue; and that the people of this country may be taught to look with jealousy for their liberties, if our court is engaged in meetings with great despotic monarchs, deliberating upon what degree of revolutionary spirit may endanger the public security, and therefore require the interference of the alliance."

The Emperor of Russia was disappointed because the treaty was not more definite; he wished it to be one of "explicit, universal, and reciprocal guarantee."

Events soon occurred which forced an interpretation of the language of these treaties and declarations; when it was found that the three courts of Russia, Austria, and Prussia considered the allies as the constituted guardians of Europe. The peace,

1 Letters of Castlereagh, XII., 62, 63.

the internal prosperity of States, even the sentiments of religion and morality were to be objects of the care of the alliance. England, however, could see no authority in the alliance to erect the principle of intervention in the internal affairs of States into a general rule.

The people of Spain, abandoned by their kings in 1808, had made a brave resistance to Napoleon's aggressions, and in 1812 had formed a liberal constitution; but at the general peace in 1815, they had been again delivered over to that bigoted tyrant, Ferdinand VII. In 1820 (March 8), the army which had been assembled at Cadiz to be sent against the rebellious SpanishAmerican Colonies, revolted, and refused to embark. This stand taken by the army was followed by an uprising of the people throughout Spain. The liberal constitution of 1812 was revived, and forced upon the reluctant king, and a new era seemed to open for the Spanish nation.

The revolution in Spain was followed, July 2, 1820, by a like movement of the army and people of Naples. Having nothing better at hand, they also proclaimed the Spanish constitution of 1812. A similar insurrection took place in Portugal on the 23d of August.

Alarmed by these popular movements, the Emperors of Austria and Russia proposed a meeting of the alliance to consult upon measures to be taken for the peace of Europe. The representatives of Austria, Russia, and Prussia, met accordingly in November, 1820, at Troppau.

The three powers issued a circular, in which they call attention to the wickedness and danger of these rebellions, and declare that "the alliance formed under the most trying circumstances, *** affirmed by the conventions of 1815 and 1818," had freed Europe from the military tyranny of the representative of revolution, should now be in a position "to put a curb on a force no less tyrannical and no less detestable-that of revolt and crime."

It was decided to act first against Naples as presenting the most pressing danger; and the deliberations at Troppau were transferred to Laybach, where the final arrangements for intervention in the affairs of Naples were made. In accordance

1 Hertslet, I., 658.