THE CONGRESS OF WOMEN.

283

participants. The questions which have proved susceptible of arbitration fall under five main heads: I. Boundary disputes. 2. Unlawful seizure of vessels or other property. 3. Claims for damage for the destruction of life or property. 4. Disputed possession of territory. 5. The interpretation of treaties.

The most noteworthy cases of arbitration are two or three of special character, which hardly come under the five heads named above. The first is the Luxembourg question, which was settled in 1867. The jealousy manifested by France toward Prussia during the peace negotiations which terminated the Austro-Prussian war, found expression in Napoleon’s demand for territorial recompense to reconcile France to the changes in Europe effected by the peace of Prague. Prussia was now in pos­session of military strength equal to that of France herself, and her recent exploits and successes were looked upon by France as the precursor of efforts toward self- aggrandizement. Napoleon’s eye fell upon the grand duchy of Luxembourg, which was under the sovereignty of the King of Holland, but a member of the German con­federation until the dissolution of the latter in 1866. The fortress of Luxembourg was still occupied by the Prussian troops. The negotiations begun by Napoleon with the King of Holland for the annexation of the duchy to France failed on account of the objection of Prussia, whereupon PVance demanded the evacuation of the fortress by Prussia. A warm dispute ensued, and, as the excitement spread through Europe, war seemed inevitable. The Queen of England, however, offered her services as arbitrator, in accordance with Article VII. of the Treaty of Paris, 1856. It was finally agreed that the question be settled by a conference of the great powers of Europe. This conference met at London May 11, 1867, and decided that the fortress should be dismantled and its neutrality guaranteed by the signatories of the Treaty of Paris. The duchy became the property of the House of Orange. War was averted for three years only; the jealousy of PVance found its outlet in the Franco-Prussian war.

A rebellion of the Island of Crete (then under the rule of the Turks) occurring in the same year, resulted in an uninterrupted struggle of two years. The great powers of Phirope pursued, for the most part, the policy of non-intervention. But Greece manifested a friendly interest in her neighbor’s welfare, and some sympathy with the cause of the oppressed Cretans. Incensed at what was deemed the instigation of Turkish subjects to revolt, the Porte launched at Greece an ultimatum charging her with aiding and abetting the rebellion. The Greek minister replied haughtily, and diplomatic relations were broken off. A threatened engagement between a Turkish and a Greek vessel was prevented by the F'rench minister in Greece, but the incident brought matters to a crisis, and roused the attention of all Europe. The Prussian government proposed to IAance to call a conference of the powers at London. After much diplomatic correspondence the plan was adopted and the conference met Janu­ary 9, 1869, but it barely escaped disintegration at the outset. Turkey, as a signatory of the Treaty of Paris, was admitted, with deliberative powers. Greece claimed the same privilege, but was refused in spite of indignant remonstrance. After several sessions, a declaration was drawn up in favor of Turkey. This conference has been variously judged, some blaming its members for assuming the functions of judges when they had merely been invited to deliberate and advise; others praising with much warmth the work of the conference in averting a war which might have involved all the powers of Europe. Both criticisms are just in part. This much may be safely said: Although its results were important, the conference can hardly be held up as a type of a well-managed commission of arbitration.

The circumstances which led to the famous “Alabama” case are too familiar to need rehearsal here. The apathy of Great Britain toward the depredations of the Confederate cruiser gave great offense to the United States government, which pro­nounced England responsible for all these acts, and guilty of a breach of neutrality. Diplomatic correspondence became more and more bitter, complicating rather than clearing up the matter. After four years of weary, fruitless negotiation, settlement by joint commission was suggested by Mr. Reverdy Johnson. The proposition was