EASTERN QUESTION. 



261 



be bound by the treaties which restrict her righU of 

 _nty in tho BUck Soa, 



\V<- liuvi: hero an allegation that certain fact* havo 

 occurred which, in the judgment of UUHU'IU, arc ot 

 - with .-.rtuin stipulations of tlic treaty; uiul 

 [iiijiti'iii is niiido tliut Kussiu, upon the strength 

 ot'luT own judgment as to the character of those facets, 

 is entitled to release herself from certain other stipu- 

 l.iti >IH uf that instrument. This assumption IB lim- 

 ited in its practical application to some of the pro- 

 visions of tho treaty. But the assumption of u n/M. 

 to renounce any one of its terms involves the us- 

 h.jiuption of a right to renounce tho whole. 



This statement is wholly independent of the 

 reasonableness or unreasonableness, on its own mer- 

 its, of the desire of Russia to bo released from tho 

 observation of tho stipulations of the treaty of 1850 

 respecting tho Black Sea. For the question is, in 

 whoso baud lies the power of releasing ono or more 

 of the parties from all or any of these stipulations? 

 It has always been held that that right belongs only 

 to the governments who have been parties to the 

 original instrument. Tho dispatches or Prince Gorts- 

 chakoff appear to assume that any one of the powers 

 who havo signed tho engagement may allege that 

 occurrences have taken place which in its opinion 

 are at variance with the provisions of the treatv, and 

 although this view is not shared or admitted by the 

 co-signatory powers, may found upon that allega- 

 tion not a request to those governments for the 

 consideration of tho case but an announcement to 

 them that it has emancipated itself, or holds itself 

 emancipated from any stipulations of the treaty which 

 it thinks fit to disapprove. 



Yet it is quite evident that the effect of such doc- 

 trine, and of any proceeding which with or without 

 avowal is founded upon it, is to bring the entire au- 

 thority and efficacy of treaties under the discretion- 

 ary control of each one of tho powers who may have 

 signed them ; the result of which would be the entire 

 destruction of treaties in their essence. For whereas 

 their whole object is to bind powers to one another, 

 and for this purpose each one of the parties surren- 

 ders a portion of its free agency, by the doctrine and 

 proceeding now in question, one of the parties in its 

 separate and individual capacity brings back the en- 

 tire subject into its own control, and remains bound 

 only to itself. 



Accordingly, Prince Gprtschakoff has announced 

 in those dispatches tho intention of Eussia to con- 

 tinue to observe certain of the provisions of the treaty. 

 However satisfactory this may be in itself, it is ob- 

 viously an expression of the free will of that power 

 which it might at any time alter or withdraw ; and 

 in this it is open to the same objections as the other 

 portions of the communications, because it implies 

 the right of Russia to annul tho treaty on the ground 

 of allegations of which she constitutes herself the 

 only judge. 



The question, therefore, arises, not whether any 

 desire expressed by Russia ought to bo carefully ex- 

 amined in a friendly spirit by the co-signatory 

 powers, but whether they are to accept from her tho 

 announcement that by her own act, without any con- 

 sent from them, she has released herself from a 

 solemn covenant. 



I need scarcely say that her Majesty's Government 

 have received this communication with deep regret, 

 because it opens a discussion which might nusettle 

 the cordial understanding it has been their earnest 

 endeavor to maintain with the Russian Empire. And 

 for the above-mentioned reasons it is impossible for 

 her Majesty's Government to give any sanction on 

 their p-irt to the course announced by Prince Gorts- 

 chakoff. If, instead of such a declaration, the Rus- 

 sian Government had addressed her Majesty's Gov- 

 ernment, and the other powers who are parties to 

 the treatv of 1856, and had proposed for considera- 

 tion with them whether any thing had occurred 

 which could be held to amount to an infraction of 



the treaty, or whether there is any thing in the 

 terms which, from altered circuuintanccs, preiue* 

 with undue severity upon Russia, or which, in tho 

 course of events, had become necessary for the duo 

 protection of Turkey, her Majesty's Government 

 would not have refused to examine the quenti<>n in 

 concert witli tho co-signatories to the treaty. What- 

 ever might have been the result of such communica- 

 tions, a risk of future complications, and a very dan- 

 gerous precedent u to the validity- of international 

 obligations, would have been avoided. I am, etc., 



GRANVIi 



P. 8. You will read and give a copy of thin dis- 

 patch to Prince Gortschakoff. G. 



Tho note of Prince Gortschakoff having been 

 presented to the Minister of Foreign Affaire at 

 Vienna, Count Beust replied that there could 

 be no doubt as to the mutual obligations in- 

 volved by the treaty of 1856, which could not 

 by ono party be modified or annulled. It waa 

 merely m deference to tho Cabinet of St. Pe- 

 tersburg, that he, Count Beust, proceeded to 

 analyze tho arguments produced by Prince 

 Gortschakoff. The fact that Turkey was able 

 to maintain a fleet where Russia could not 

 might justify a desiro for a revision of tho 

 treaty, but not its arbitrary repudiation. Steps 

 like those taken by Russia were sure to en- 

 danger all existing and future treaties. Turkey, 

 he said, was not responsible for the alleged 

 breach of treaty by the union of the Danubian 

 Principalities. Turkey did not demand tho 

 sanction of this breach of treaty, which in- 

 fringed upon her rights and interests. The 

 entry into the Black Sea of foreign men-of-war 

 having princes on board was a harmless pro- 

 ceeding, of which Russia should havo com- 

 plained at the time, if she regarded it as objec- 

 tionable. The Austro-Hungarian Government 

 had learned with painful regret the resolve of 

 Russia, and must express its great surprise. It 

 could not but direct the serious attention of 

 the Government of St. Petersburg to the con- 

 sequences of such a proceeding. 



A further note of Count Beust, addressed to 

 the Austrian ambassador, Count Chotek, at 

 St. Petersburg, refutes the charge that Count 

 Beust had taken the initiative in this matter, 

 in January, 1867. At that time the Russian 

 Imperial Chancellor himself deemed the action 

 of Count Beust precipitate, as tending to ex- 

 cite tho suspicions of the French Government, 

 while no satisfactory result could be expected 

 from a congress; besides, according to tho 

 proposals of Count Beust at that time, tho 

 signers of the treaty conjointly, but not a single 

 power by itself, were to proceed to a revision 

 of the treaty. At that time, too, the proposal 

 of Count Beust had not been of a nature to 

 call forth dangerous complications, while the 

 present isolated proceeding of Russia created 

 serious misgivings, as the Christian popula- 

 tions of tho East would think that Russia 

 deemed tho moment opportune to take the so- 

 lution of the Eastern question in hand. 



The Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Vi- 

 conti Venosta, acknowledges the receipt of a 

 copy of the note of Prince Gortschakoff, in a 



