1 Tricoupis, S., Istoria tis Hellenikes Epanastascos, Vol. II, p. 106 (ed. 1888)Google Scholar; see also Saripolos, N., Das Staatsrecht des Konigreichs Griechenland (Das Öffenlliche Recht der Gegenwart, Vol. VIII, p. 12)Google Scholar.

2 On July 20, 1825, the clergy, the representatives of the nation, and the naval and military chiefs in their appeal to England said that they had taken up arms in defense of mankind’s natural and imprescriptible rights to freedom of property, religion and liberty. It was on account of the desperate condition of the revolution at that time that the Greek nation wished to place themselves under the protection of Great Britain, and solicited the nomination of an English prince as their sovereign. “The Greek nation,” they said, “places the sacred deposit of its liberty, independence, and political existence, under the absolute protection of Great Britain.” Napulia, July 20, 1825. � H. H. Parish, the Diplomatic History of the Monarchy of Greece, ed.-1838.)

3 Saripolos, ibid., p. 5.

4 Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, Third Series, Vol. 71, p. 794.

5 Hertslet, Map of Europe by Treaty, Vol. II, p. 841.

6 Ibid., pp. 893-895.

7 Saripolos, ibid., pp. 6-7.

8 See text of Proclamation in Epaminondas J. Kyriakides, Istoria tou Singchronou Hellenesmou (ed. 1892), Vol. I, pp. 242 and 243.

9 Kyriakides, ibid., p. 283.

10 George Finlay, History of the Greek Revolution, Vol. II, p. 289. Also Finlay, History of Greece, Vol. VII, p. 106, ed. 1877.

11 Finlay, History of Greece, Vol. VII, p. 168.

12 Hansard, new series, Vol. XXII (February-March, 1830), pp. 545-546.

13 Sir Spencer Walpole, The History of Twenty Years, Vol. I, p. 13.

14 Hansard, new series, Vol. XXII, pp. 550-556.

15 Hansard, new series, Vol. XXII, p. 560. Lord Landsdowne, expressing his feelings on the subject in the House of Lords, said he “wished that the measures which were to be taken for the pacification of Greece would be calculated to make her happy and independent, for if independent, she must be essentially free and strong.” (Hansard, new series, Vol. XXII, p. 54.)

16 Hansard, Vol. XXXV, Third Series, p. 636.

17 “It is curious,” says an English writer, “that a Prince, who was destined by his royal father (the King of Bavaria) to be a priest … and, in due time a Cardinal, developed into an absolute Monarch.” (Blackwood’s Magazine, September, 1843, p. 545.)

18 Hansard, Third Series, Vol. LXXI (July-August, 1843), pp. 797-798.

19 Hansard, Vol. LXXI, pp. 798-799-800.

20 Ibid., p. 802.

21 Hansard, Vol. LXXI, pp. 805-808.

22 Guizot, Histoire Parlementaire de France, Vol. II, pp. 158-159.

23 Histoire Parlementaire, IV, p. 153. The same views are expressed in his Mimoires, Vol. VI, p. 262.

24 Guizot, Hist. Parl, IV, p. 184.

25 Ibid., p. 167.

26 Finlay, History of Greece, Vol. VII, p. 168. See also Blackwood’s Magazine, September, 1843, p. 345.

27 Finlay, Hist, of Greece, Vol. VII, p. 372.

28 Ibid., p. 177.

29 Kyriakides, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 167-468.

30 Kyriakides, Vol. II, p. 172.

31 Ibid., p. 234. Also Debates of General Assembly of the Greeks, No. 39, Vol. I, pp. 323-325.

32 See despatch of November 6, 1862, in Parliamentary Correspondence ot October, 1862, Nos. 19-20, Vol. 73, 1863.

33 Hansard, Third Series, Vol. CLXX (1863), pp. 182-183.

34 Le Correspondant, January, 1862. F. Lenormant, La Grèce et son Gouvernement.

35 Hansard, Third Series, Vol. CLX1X, (1863), pp. 1-2.

36 Parliamentary Correspondence, 1862, respecting the Revolution in Greece, Vol. 173, No. 144, p. 147, despatch of January 22, 1863.

37 Kyriakides, ibid., p. 234. Also Debates of the General Assembly of the Greeks, No. 40, Vol. II, p. 313.

38 Parliamentary Correspondence respecting the Revolution in Greece, 1862, Vol. 73, No. 107, p. 99, December 12, 1862.

39 Ibid., No. 144, p . 147, despatch of January 22, 1863.

40 Kyriakides, Vol. II , p. 234 and 245 note.

41 Ibid., p. 257.

42 L. Duguit, Traité de droit Constitutionnel, Vol. I, pp. 397-398.

43 Saripolos, op. cit., p. 14, note 6.

44 Kyriakides, II, p. 235.

45 See Protocol of May 16, 1863, and that of May 27, 1863, Hertslet, ibid., II, pp. 1535-1537; see also the treaty between the same Powers and Denmark of July 13, 1863, Hertslet, p. 1545. In regard to the title of “King of the Hellenes” see Protocols of August 3 and October 13, 1863, Hertslet, ibid., p. 1563.

46 Hertslet, ibid., II, pp. 1863-1864; see also Pari. Corresp., op. cit., despatch of Lord Russell to Cowley, November 8, 1862, No. 24.

47 Hertslet, II, pp. 1863-1864.

48 Hertslet, III, pp. 1589-1592.

49 See Annex A to the Protocol of the Conference of June 5, 1863, which reproduces a letter of the Greek Government enclosing a decree of the National Assembly of the Greeks proclaiming George I as Constitutional King of the Hellenes; also copy of decree. Hertslet, III, pp. 1542-1543.

50 London Times, January 16, 1915.

51 London Times, March 8, 1915.

52 The texts of official documents bearing on the Hellenic crisis will be published in the Supplement to the next number of the Journal.

53 According to recent accounts, King Constantine had then, without consulting his Ministers, promised Emperor William II that Greece would remain neutral, even if Bulgaria attacked Serbia.

54 As this question will be discussed in the second part of this article to be published in the next number, we refrain from giving any details of it. It will then be explained whether this conversation of the Greek Premier with the Ministers of the Allies constituted a covenant justifying the landing of troops in Salonica, or whether the Allies could not have invoked a better title in justification of that proceeding. Another point which will be hereafter discussed is whether the Executive in Greece could bind the country by a measure in which the approval of the Legislature was necessary, and if so, whether it was or was not the duty of the Allies to obtain that assent before landing their troops on Greek territory.

55 See sittings of the Boulé of October 5, 1915, in Supplement of Patris, Athens, 1915; also, London Times, October 7, 1915.

56 It was during this interview that King Constantine gave vent to his strange views about his so-called divine right of rule over Greece. He plainly told Mr. Venizelos, when the latter urged him to fulfil the treaty obligation towards Serbia, that he (the King) was prepared to “leave the internal affairs of Greece to the Government,” but that “in regard to external relations, he considered himself alone responsible before God for their direction.” But the Greek statesman in no less plain language told the Sovereign that he was “enunciating the doctrine of the divine right of Kings with which the Greeks had nothing to do.” “Your father,” said Mr. Venizelos to Constantine, “was freely elected by the Greek people to be their King, and you are his successor. There is no divine right in that title. It is based on the mandate of the people.” (London Times, October 11, 1916.) The question has often been asked as to how King Constantine got into his head this peculiar notion of being a sovereign of Greece by Divine right. Some ascribe it to his relationship to Emperor William II; others assert that the King was haunted by such ideas even during his father’s lifetime, who vainly, it seems, tried to dissipate this extraordinary conception of his son as to the origin of hi3 future legal rights. But the case of the King of Prussia and the Emperor of Germany is entirely different. The Kaiser claims that his crown was not given to his family, but placed upon the head of the Hohenzollern by the grace of God. Thus, speaking at Coblenz on August 31, 1897, he said that his grandfather (William I) “came forth from Coblenz to ascend the throne as a chosen instrument of the Lord,” that “thus he regarded himself,” and that his was a “Kingship by the grace of God.” (See the Times, September 2, 1897. See also speech at Koeningsberg, August 25, 1910, in the Times, August 27, 1910.)

That this theory is now obsolete not only in England, but also in the countries of Continental Europe, is the view of various distinguished jurists. Even Blackstone, writing shortly after the middle of the eighteenth century, says that such a title may be allowed “under the theocratical establishment of the children of Israel” (Commentaries, Book I, Chap. 3).

On the other hand, the learned author of the “Law and Custom of the Constitution “(Sir William Anson), in tracing the origin of this doctrine, tells us that when the Reformation destroyed the feudal conception of society, and the “dependence of the King upon the earthly power was exploded,” men sought for some theory of political duty and they found it in the conception of Divine right (Volume I, ed. 1911, pp. 37-39). See also Gneist, Geschichte der Englischen Verfassung, pp. 545-546. See also valuable information given on this point by Duguit, Traité de droit Constitviionnel (Vol. I, pp. 24-28).

On the theory of Divine right generally, see Jellinek, Allgemeine Staatslehre, ed. 1914, pp. 670 et seq.; also, Bluntschli, Allgemeine Staatslehre, ed. 1886, pp. 332-334, remarks (a, b, c, d, e, and f), who asserts that Frederick the Great repudiated this doctrine, and justly observes that “the new world cannot be beguiled with this production of a morbid imagination."

On the exaggerated conception of regal rights of Louis XIV, see F. Laurent, Histoire du droit des gens, Vol. XI, pp. 10-13.

E. Glasson tells us that the words “King by the Grace of God,” which had at one time disappeared from the English coins, reappeared during the cabinet of Lord John Russell, in order to satisfy “certain trivial scruples” (Histoire du droit et des constitutions politiques, civils et juridiques de l’Angleterre, Vol. V, pp. 407-408).

That these words have no serious meaning now is the view also of Italian writers, who tell us that the King of Italy calls himself “King by the Grace of God, and by the will of the nation.” (See L. Palma, Corso di Dirit to Costituzionale, Vol. II, p. 375; see also Brusa, C., Staatsrecht des Konigreiehs Italien in Marquardsen’s Handbuch des Öffentlichen Rechts, Vol. IV, pp. 72-76 Google Scholar.

57 This point will be fully discussed in the second part of this article.

58 A name given to Mr. Venizelos by the present writer in an article entitled “The Cretan Question” in the April, 1910, issue of this Journal, on account of his great services to Greece during the peaceful revolution of 1909, when by his presence in Athen3 he brought about a speedy settlement of the then burning questions. Epimenides, the Cretan prophet and poet, was brought to Athens by the Legislator Solon to cure the evils then prevailing in the city.

59 Theseus, a Greek hero, according to tradition, after performing many heroic deeds, returned to Athens, and there united the various tribes, then at war with each other. In token of this national union, he instituted the famous festivals of Panathensea.