260 



EASTERN QUESTION". 



Christian inhabitants are more or less at their 

 mercy, and are treated like slaves. The Turk- 

 ish Government, it is true, has lately introduced 

 some essential reforms, which are partly due 

 to the enlightened views of the present Sultan, 

 partly to the influence of the foreign ambassa- 

 dors at Constantinople. But these reforms, 

 although conferring some privileges upon the 

 Christian inhabitants, are still far from putting 

 them on a level with the Mohammedan popu- 

 lation. 



Since the commencement of the war be- 

 tween France and Germany, Eussia repeatedly 

 manifested an intention to annul the* principal 

 stipulations of the Treaty of Paris. The clauses 

 which Russia was, in particular, eager to have 

 repealed were : 



AETICLE 11. The Black Sea is neutralized. While 

 open to the mercantile navies of all nations, its waters 

 and ports are formally and forever closed to vessels- 

 of-war, whether belonging to nations having territory 

 bordering on it or to others. 



ART. 13. The Black Sea being neutralized, Eussia 

 and Turkey engage neither to construct nor to main- 

 tain any naval or military arsenal upon its coast. 



The plans of Russia were finally matured in 

 a note of Prince Gortschakoff, of October 31st, 

 which was presented simultaneously at London, 

 Vienna, Constantinople, Florence, and Tours, 

 on November 9th, and is as follows : 



TZAKSKOE SELO, October 19 (31), 1870. 



BAEOS- : The successive alterations which the corn- 



obliged 



influence upon the political position of Eussia result- 

 ing therefrom. Among these compromises, that 

 Avnich interests us most directly is the treaty of the 

 18th (30th) March, 1856. The special convention be- 

 tween the two powers bordering on the Black Sea, 

 annexed to this treaty, contains an engagement on 

 the part of Eussia to limit her naval forces to incon- 

 siderable dimensions. In return, this treaty offered 

 her the principle of the neutralization of that sea. 



In the view of the signatory powers, this principle 

 was to remove all possibility of conflict, whether 

 between the powers bordering on the Black Sea, or 

 between them and the maritime powers. It was to 

 increase the number of territories called by the unani- 

 mous agreement of Europe to enjoy the benefits of 

 neutrality, and BO to protect Eussia herself from all 

 danger of aggressions. 



The experience of fifteen years has proved that this 

 principle, upon which depends the security of the 

 whole extent of the frontiers of the Bussian Empire 

 in this direction, rests only on a theory. In fact, 

 while Eussia, disarmed in the Black Sea, has even by 

 a declaration, recorded in the protocols of the confer- 

 ences, legally denied herself the possibility of taking 

 efficient measures of maritime defence in the adjacent 

 seas and ports, Turkey preserved the right of keeping 

 up unlimited naval forces in the Archipelago and the 

 Straits, and France and England preserved the power 

 of concentrating their squadrons in the Mediterranean. 



Moreover, by the terms of the treaty the entrance 

 to the Black Sea is formally and forever prohibited 

 to the flag of war, whether of the riparian powers or 

 anv other power. But by virtue of the convention 

 called the Straits Convention, the passage through 

 these Straits is closed to flags of war only in time of 

 peace. It results from this contradiction that the 

 coasts of the Bussian Empire remain exposed to all 

 aggressions, even on the part of less powerful states 

 ns soon as they possess naval forces, to which Eussia 



would be able to oppose only a few vessels of small 

 dimensions. 



The treaty of 18th (30th) March^lSSG, moreover, has 

 not escaped the infractions to which most of the Eu- 

 ropean compromises have been subject, and in pres- 

 ence of which it would be difficult to aflirm that 

 written law, founded upon respect for treaties as a 

 base of public law and rule for the relations between 

 states, has preserved the same moral sanction trhich 

 it may have had in other times. 



We have seen the principalities of Moldavia and 

 Wallachia, the fate of which had been fixed by the 

 treaty of peace, and by the subsequent protocols 

 under the guarantee of the great powers, eifect a series 

 of revolutions as contrary to the spirit as to the letter 

 of these compromises, and which led them first to 

 union, then to the summoning of a foreign prince. 

 These events occurred with the consent of the'Porte, 

 and the acquiescence of the great powers, or at least 

 without the latter having thought it necessary to make 

 their decree^ respected. 



The representative of Eussia was the only one to 

 raise his voice to point out to the Cabinets that by 

 this toleration they would put themselves in contra- 

 diction to the explicit stipulations of the treaty. Be- 

 yond doubt, if these concessions, granted to one of 

 the Christian nationalities of the East, had resulted 

 from a general understanding between the Cabinets 

 and the Porte, by virtue of a principle applicable to 

 the whole of the Christian population of Turkev, the 

 Imperial Cabinet would have had nothing to d"o but 

 applaud. But they were exclusive. 



The Imperial Cabinet then could not but be struck 

 with the fact that it had been possible to infringe 

 with impunity the treaty of 1856, out afewyears after 

 its conclusion, in one of its essential clauses, in the 

 face of the great powers assembled in conference at 

 Paris, and representing^ as a whole, the high collec- 

 tive authority upon which rested the peace of the 

 East. This infraction was not the only one. At sev- 

 eral intervals, and under various pretexts^ the entrance 

 to the Straits has been opened to foreign ships-of- 

 war, and that of the BlacK Sea to whole squadrons, 

 the presence of which was a violation of the character 

 of aosolute neutrality ascribed to these waters, in 

 order to secure the repose of the East and the Euro- 

 pean equilibrium. 



His Majesty is convinced that that peace, and that 

 equilibrium, will have a stronger guarantee when 

 they shall have been placed on a more ;just and solid 

 basis than those resulting from a position which no 

 great power could accept as a normal condition of 

 existence. 



You are desired to read this dispatch to the Minis- 

 ter of Foreign Affairs, and leave a copy with him. 

 Eeceive, etc. GOETSCHAKOFF. 



To this, Earl Granville replied, November 

 10th, by the following note to Sir A. Buchanan, 

 British ambassador at St. Petersburg : 



FOREIGN OFFICE, November 10, 1870. 



SIR : Baron Brunnow made to me yesterday the 

 communication respecting the convention between 

 the Emperor of Eussia and the Sultan, limiting their 

 naval forces in the Black Sea, signed at Paris on the 

 30th of March, 1856, to which you allude in your tele- 

 gram of yesterday afternoon. In my dispatch of 

 yesterday I gave you an account of what passed be- 

 tween us. and I now propose to observe upon Prince 

 GortschakofFs dispatches of the 19th and 20th ultimo, 

 communicated to me by the Bussian ambassador. 



On that occasion, Prince Gortschakoff declares, on 

 the part of his Imperial Majesty, that the treaty of 

 1858 has been infringed in various respects to the 

 prejudice of Eussia, and more especially in the case 

 of the Principalities, against the explicit protest, of 

 his representative ; and that, in consequence of these 

 infractions, Bussia is entitled to renounce those stip- 

 ulations of the treaty which directly touch her inter- 

 ests. It is then announced that she will no longer 



