[Black Sea.] No. 429.--RUSSIAN NOTE denouncing the Stipulations of the General Treaty of 30th March, 1856, and the Separate Convention with Turkey of the same date, relative to the Limitation of their Naval Forces in the Black Sea. 31st October, 1870.* Prince Gortchakoff to Baron Brunnow. (Communicated to Earl Granville by Baron Brunnow, 9th November, 1870.) (Translation as laid before Parliament.) M. le Baron, Tzarskoé Sélo, October, 1870. 19th 31st THE Successive alterations which the transactions considered as the foundation of the European Balance of Power have undergone during late years, have rendered it necessary for the Imperial Cabinet to inquire how far their results affect the political position of Russia. Among these transactions, that which interests Russia most directly is the Treaty of 18th March, 1856 (No. 264). The special Convention between the two States bordering on the Black Sea, which forms an Appendix to this Treaty (No. 266), contains an engagement on the part of Russia to limit her Naval Forces to a minimum. In return this Treaty established the principle of the Neutrali sation of that Sea. By laying down this principle the signatory Powers intended to remove any possibility of a conflict between the Powers bordering on the Black Sea, or between them and the Maritime Powers. It was intended to increase the number of the Territories which have been accorded the benefit of Neutrality by the unanimous consent of Europe, and thus protect Russia herself from all danger of attack. A 15 years' experience has proved that this principle, on which the safety of the whole extent of the Russian Frontiers in this direction exclusively depends, is no more than a theory. In reality, while Russia was disarming in the Black Sea, and, by a Declaration contained in the Protocols of the Conference, likewise loyally deprived herself of the possibility of taking measures for an effectual Maritime Defence in the adjoining Seas and Ports, Turkey preserved her privilege of maintaining unlimited Naval Forces in the Archipelago and the Straits; France and A similar Note was addressed to the other Powers Parties to the Treaty of Paris of 30th March, 1856. See also further Note, of 1st Novem ber, 1870, and Declaration, of 17th January, 1871. [Black Sea.] England preserved their power of concentrating their squadrons in the Mediterranean. Again, under the Treaty in question, the entry of the Black Sea formally and in perpetuity interdicted to the Flag of War either of the Powers possessing its Coasts or of any other Power; but the so-called Straits Treaty closes the Straits only in time of Peace to men-of-war. Owing to this contradiction, the shores of the Russian Empire are exposed to attack even from less powerful States whenever they have Naval Forces at their disposal, while all that Russia could oppose to them would be some ships of small size. The Treaty of 18th March, 1856 (No. 264), has, moreover, not escaped the modifications to which most European transactions have been exposed, and in the face of which it would be difficult to maintain that the written Law, founded upon the respect for Treaties as the basis of Public Right and regulating the relations between States, retains the moral validity which it may have possessed at other times. We have witnessed the Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, whose position had, under the guarantee of the Great Powers, been defined in the Treaty of Peace and the subsequent Protocols, accomplish a series of revolutions which are equally at variance with the letter and spirit of these transactions, and which first led to the Union, and subsequently to the election of a Foreign Prince (Nos. 286, 300, 334, 363, 364, 375, 399, 404). These facts have obtained the sanction of the Porte and the consent of the Great Powers,--or, at any rate, the latter have not thought it necessary to enforce their decisions. The Representative of Russia was the only one who raised his voice to remind the Cabinets that by this tolerance they would be departing from the distinct stipulations of the Treaty.* No doubt, if these concessions to one of the Christian Nationalities of the East had proceeded from a general agreement between the Cabinets and the Porte, and if they had been based upon a principle alike applicable to all the Christian populations of Turkey, they would have been applauded by the Imperial Cabinet; but they were exclusive. The Imperial Cabinet, therefore, could not but be surprised at seeing the Treaty of 18th March, 1856 (No. 264), violated with impunity in one of its most essential clauses, but a few years after * On the 2nd May, 1866, the Plenipotentiaries assembled in Conference at Paris addressed a Declaration to the Provisional Government at Bucharest informing them that they could only elect a native as their Prince. [Black Sea.] its conclusion, and this in face of the Great Powers assembled in Conference at Paris, and representing together the high collective authority on which rested the Peace of the East. But this infraction was not the only one. Repeatedly, and under various pretexts, Foreign Men-of-War have been suffered to enter the Straits, and whole Squadrons, whose presence was an infraction of the character of absolute Neutrality attributed to those waters, admitted to the Black Sea.* While the pledges offered by the Treaty, and more especially the Guarantees for the effective Neutralisation of the Black Sea, were thus being weakened, the introduction of ironclad vessels, unknown and unforeseen at the conclusion of the Treaty of 1856, increased the danger for Russia in the event of War, by adding considerably to the already patent inequality of the respective Naval Forces. Under these circumstances, His Majesty could not but ask himself what are the Rights and Duties accruing to Russia from these modifications of the general situation and the departures from the engagements which, although conceived in a spirit of distrust towards herself, she has invariably and scrupulously observed. After maturely considering this question, His Imperial Majesty has arrived at the following conclusions, which you are instructed to bring to the knowledge of the Government to which you are accredited : : Our illustrious Master cannot admit, de jure, that Treaties, violated in several of their essential and general clauses, should remain binding in other clauses directly affecting the interests of his Empire.† His Imperial Majesty cannot admit, de facto, that the security of Russia should depend on a fiction which has not stood the test of time, and should be imperilled by her respect for engagements which have not been observed in their integrity. Confiding in the feelings of justice of the Powers who have signed the Treaty of 1856, as well as in their consciousness of their own dignity, the Emperor commands you to declare that His Imperial Majesty cannot any longer hold himself bound by the stipulations of the Treaty of 18th March, 1856 (No. 264), as far as they restrict his Sovereign Rights in the Black Sea; That His Imperial Majesty deems himself both entitled and See Note, next page. See Declaration of 17th January, 1871, and Note, page 1899. [Black Sea.] obliged to denounce to His Majesty the Sultan the Special and Additional Convention (No. 266) appended to the said Treaty, which fixes the number and size of the Vessels of War which the two Powers bordering on the Black Sea shall keep in that Sea; That His Majesty loyally informs of this the Powers who have signed and guaranteed the General Treaty, of which the Convention in question forms an integral part; That His Majesty restores to the Sultan the full exercise of his rights in this respect, resuming the same for himself; In acquitting yourself of this duty, you will take care to point out that our illustrious Master has only the safety and dignity of his Empire in view. His Imperial Majesty has no wish to revive the Eastern Question. On this point, as on all others, he has no wish but the preservation and consolidation of Peace. He fully adheres to his consent to the general principles of the Treaty of 1856, which have fixed the position of Turkey in the European system (No. 264). He is ready to enter into an understanding with the Powers who have signed that transaction, for the purpose either of confirming its general stipulations, or of renewing them, or of replacing them by some other equitable arrangement, which may be considered as calculated to secure the tranquillity of the East, and the Balance of Power in Europe. His Imperial Majesty is convinced that that Peace and that Balance of Power will receive a fresh Guarantee if they are based upon a more just and solid foundation than one resulting from a state of things which no Great Power can accept as a normal condition of its existence. You are requested to read this despatch to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and leave him a copy. I avail, &c., GORTCHAKOFF. [In 1871 a Return was laid before Parliament showing the number of Foreign Ships of War (except light Vessels to be stationed at the mouths of the Danube, Russian and Turkish Vessels intended to form the Black Sea Fleets, and Vessels for Service of Foreign Legations, sanctioued by Treaty) which had been allowed to pass through the Dardanelles and Bosphorus since the conclusion of the Treaty of Peace with Russia on the 30th March, 1856, from which it appeared that in 1862, 1 British; in 1866, 1 American; in 1868, 2 American, 2 Austrian, 1 French, and 1 Russian; and in 1869, 1 Prussian Ship of War had been allowed to pass through the Straits. It also appeared that in 7 other instances, questions had arisen with regard to the passage of Foreign Ships of War through the Straits, but that in no case had a violation of Treaty been shown to have taken place.] [Black Sea.] · No. 430.-FURTHER RUSSIAN NOTE denouncing the Stipulations of the General Treaty of 30th March, 1856, and the Separate Convention with Turkey of the same date, relative to the Limitation of their Naval Forces in the Black Sea. 1st November, 1870.* M. le Baron, Prince Gortchakoff to Baron Brunnow. (Translation as laid before Parliament.) Tzarskoé Sélo, 20th October, 1870. IN making the communication to the Principal Secretary of State of Her Britannic Majesty, according to the orders of His Majesty the Emperor, you will take care to make its sense and bearing well understood. When, at the commencement of 1866, there was a question of Conferences between the 3 Powers, with a view to prevent the War then imminent in Germany by the Assembly of a Congress (No. 377), in discussing the bases of such Conferences with Earl Russell, you had the opportunity of pointing out to him the compensations and the guarantees of security which the occurrence of certain eventualities calculated to modify the status quo existing in the East would necessitate for Russia. Lord Russell admitted this with perfect equity. He in no way disputed that any alteration made in the text and the spirit of the Treaty of 1856 (No. 264), must lead to the revision of that Act. Although those eventualities have not occurred, Lord Granville will not contest the fact that at the present time this Treaty has undergone serious modifications in one of its essential parts. That which must impress Russia in respect of these modifications is not the appearance of factitious hostility towards her by which they are characterised, nor is it the consequences which may ensue to a Great Country from the creation upon its Frontiers of a small quasi Independent State; it is chiefly the facility with which, scarcely 10 years after its conclusion, a solemn Arrangement, clothed with an European Guarantee, has been infringed both in letter and in spirit, under the very eyes of the Powers who should have been its guardians. With such a precedent before us, what value can Russia attach to the efficacy of that Arrangement, and to the pledge of *See notes pages 1894, 1895. |