ple Alliance in the affairs of Belgium. 1. During the internal troubles of the Dutch Netherlands, § 8. Intervenwhich were thus suppressed by foreign intervention, the tion of the TriCatholic provinces belonging to the house of Austria, were agitated by their resistance to the innovations attempted by the Emperor Joseph II. He had already introduced various reforms into the internal administration of his hereditary states of Germany and Hungary, and now sought to extend them to the Belgic provinces, by the suppression of religious processions, convents, and the university of Louvain. He issued, in 1787, an ordinance changing the whole form of government, centralizing the administration, and abolishing the ancient courts of justice. These innovations, however desirable in themselves for the improvement of the existing institutions of the country, were arbitrarily introduced in violation of the fundamental law of the joyeuse entrée sworn to and confirmed by the dukes of Brabant before their inauguration. The states of Brabant refused to vote the annual subsidies, in which they were joined by other provinces. The discontents of the people at last broke out in open insurrection in 1789, and a regular union of the revolted provinces was formed in 1790, styled the Republic of the United Belgic Provinces, under the government of a congress convoked at Brussels. In the midst of these events Joseph II died, and was succeeded by his brother Leopold II, who declared his willingness to re-establish the ancient constitution as the basis of his reconciliation with the Belgic people. The Belgic congress now solicited the interference of the Triple Alliance; and Count Hertzberg, the minister of Prussia at the congress of Reichenbach, transmitted to the Austrian plenipotentiaries a declaration, stating that the two maritime powers, (Great Britain and Holland,) as guarantees of the constitution of the Austrian Netherlands, and contracting parties to the treaty which secured to the house of Austria the possession of these provinces, having determined to concert measures for their pacification, the king of Prussia was resolved to co-operate with his allies in such measures § 9. Mediation of the Triple as should be necessary to maintain the guarantee, and the return of the provinces to their allegiance with an amnesty and the security of their ancient constitution. A congress of mediation consisting of the ministers of Great Britain, Prussia, and Holland was accordingly assembled at the Hague, who called upon the insurgent provinces to submit to their lawful sovereign. A convention was concluded by the three powers confirming to the Belgic provinces the privileges they had enjoyed under the acts of inauguration of Charles VI and Maria Theresa, which the Emperor ratified with the modification securing to them the privileges they had enjoyed at the decease of Maria Theresa. The allied courts at first declined to accede to this modification, but after tedious and protracted negotiations, Prussia and Holland consented, whilst Great Britain still refused, and the mediation thus became inoperative.m 2. The first war waged by the Empress Catharine II Alliance in the against the Turkish empire had been terminated by the war between treaty of Kainaraji in 1774, by which the Porte acknowRussia, Sweden, and Den- ledged the independence of the Tartars of the Krimea mark. under their khan; Russia acquired the port of Asoph and certain fortresses in the Krimea; and advanced her frontier from the Nieper to the Bog, with the free navigation of the Euxine and all the Ottoman seas, including the passage of the Dardanelles. The recognition of the independence of the Krimea by the Porte prepared the way for its subjugation by Russia, which was consummated in 1783 by its annexation, together with the Kuban and the isle of Taman, to the Russian empire. This annexation was confirmed by the Porte by the treaty of 1784, and the river Kuban established as the boundary between the two empires. The Turks again renewed the struggle with their mortal enemy in 1787; and in the following year 1788, Gus Schoell, Histoire abrégée des Traites de Paix, tom. iv. pp. 127–154. tavus III, of Sweden, attempted a diversion in their favour by suddenly declaring war against Prussia. His attempt on the Russian capital failed, whilst his own frontier was attacked on the side of Norway by the Danes acting as the allies of Russia. Their co-operation was soon terminated by the interference of the Triple Alliance, and Denmark engaged to remain neutral during the rest of the war between Russia and Sweden. This was terminated in 1790 by the peace of Werela concluded on the basis of the status quo ante bellum. Austria and 3. In the meantime Catharine II had formed an alliance § 10. In the with Joseph II, the object of which was no less than the war between conquest and partition of the Turkish empire. Prussia ne- the Porte. gotiated a counter alliance with the Ottoman Porte; but the treaty signed by the Prussian minister at Constantinople had not yet been ratified, when the congress of Reichenbach was opened, in 1790, by the ministers of Austria, Great Britain, Holland, and Prussia. The result of the conferences was the establishment of peace between Austria and the Porte, which was finally concluded upon the basis of the status quo at Szistowe, in 1791, under the mediation of the Triple Alliance. Porte. 4. The establishment of peace between Russia and the $ 11. Between Porte was a work of more difficulty. Immediately after Russia and the the congress of Reichenbach, Frederick William II invited the Empress Catharine to accept of the mediation of Prussia, an offer which was peremptorily refused by the Empress. The court of London also claimed for the Porte benefit of the status quo, and prepared a naval armament to support this pretension. The Triple Alliance demanded from the court of Denmark its good offices to engage the Empress of Russia to restore to the Turks the conquests she had made. The Empress accepted the mediation of Denmark, but declared that her honour and the safety of her Empire would allow her to consent only to a modified status quo as the basis of peace, and that she must except Otschakoff and its territory from the conquests to be restor 12. War of dence, 1776. ed to the Porte. Count Bernstorff the Danish minister proposed as a mezzo termine that Russia should retain the conquered territory to the Dniester, on condition that the fortress of Otschakoff should be demolished and all the ceded territory reduced to a desert. The demolition of the fortress was refused by the Empress of Russia, and the British ministry, embarrassed by the opposition in parliament to a war with Russia, at last reluctantly consented to join the other allies in proposing to the belligerent powers the cession by Turkey of the territory between the Bog and the Dniester to Russia. The peace was concluded at Jassy in 1792 upon this condition, with a restitution of all her other conquests by Russia. Thus the Triple Alliance continued to exercise a decisive influence upon the international affairs of Europe, until the French revolution came, and swept away in its irresistible course all existing federative systems." The peace of Paris 1763 had left Great Britain in posNorth Ameri- session of a colonial empire in North America extending can Indepen- from the Artic circle to the Gulf of Mexico. The AngloAmerican colonies were peopled with a race of freemen, who resisted the first attempt at encroachment on the part of the Imperial Parliament in the shape of taxation, whilst they had hitherto submitted to its legislative power in the regulation of trade and in some cases of mere internal concern. The distinction between the exercise of these two descriptions of sovereign power would seem to be almost too subtle and evanescent for popular apprehension. But the fulness of time was come when the mother country must establish her supreme and uncontrolled dominion, or the colonies assert their complete independence. The colonies declared their independence of Great Britain on the 4th of July, 1776, as sovereign states, and formed a confederation for their mutual defence. The court of ■ Schoel, Histoire abregée des Traités de Paix, tom. xiv. pp. 401-506. France, after long hesitation and much deliberation, openly acknowledged their independence in 1778, by forming two treaties with the United States of America, the first of amity and commerce, and the second of eventual defensive alliance." The French court notified these treaties to that of Great Britain, and sought to justify their formation by alleging that the United States were de facto in possession of the independence they had declared, and that no exclusive advantage was stipulated for France in the treaty of commerce, whilst the United States reserved the full liberty of treating with any other nation on the same equal footing of reciprocity. The French government also complained of the interruption of its lawful commerce with the new republics, by British cruizers, contrary to the law of nations and existing treaties; and alleged that Great Britain had actually commenced hostilities, by attacking a French frigate, previous to a declaration of war; whilst the British cabinet had rejected the proferred mediation of Spain, because France had insisted that the United States should be included in the pacification.P To this declaration the British government answered by accusing France of opening her ports to the American vessels of war and their prizes, allowing them to augment their armaments; whilst she permitted her subjects to fit out privateers, under the American flag, to cruize against British commerce, and to carry on a contraband traffic with the revolted colonies; and even aided them with supplies of arms and money, furnished by the French government itself, under the mask of private commercial transactions. It further alleged that even if a foreign enemy, recognized among the legitimate powers of Europe, had conquered the British American colonies, France could not recognize the ac • Martens Recueil, tom, ii. pp. 587-609. P Exposé des Motifs be la Conduite de la France, etc. Flassan, Diplomatie Française, tom. vii. p. 168. |