EARL GRANVILL'S REPLY TO BRUNNOW.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume VI, Issue 18, 21 January 1871, Page 4

EARL GRANVILL'S REPLY TO BRUNNOW.

The following masterly letter from Earl Granville to Sir A. Buchanan, appeared in the Pall Mall Gazette, of Nov. 17 : — Sir, — Baron Brunuow made to me yesterday the communication respecting the Convention between the Emperor of Russia and the Sultan limiting their naval forces in the Black Sea, signed at Paris • on March 30, 1856, to which you allude in your telegram of yesterday afternoon. In my despatch of yesterday I gave you aa account of what passed between us, and I now propose to observe upon Prince Gr.ortschakoff's despatches of the 19ih and 20th ult., communicated to me by the Russiau Ambassador on that occasion. Prince Gortschnkoff declares, on the part of his Imperial Majesty, that the Treaty of 1856 has been infringed in various respects to the prejudice of Russia, and more especially in the case of the Principalities, against the explicit protest of his representative, and that, in consequence of these infractions, Russia is entitled to'renounce those stipulations of the Treaty which directly touch her interest. It is then announced that she will no longer be bound by the Treaties which restrict her rights of sovereignty in the Black Sea. We have here an allegation that certain facts have occurred which-, in the judgment of Russia, are at variauce with certain stipulations of the Treaty, and the • assumption is made that Russia, upon the strength of her own judgment as to the character of those facts, is entitled to release herself from certain^ other stipulations of that instrument. This assumption is limited in its practical application to some of the provisions of the Treaty, but the assumption of a right to renounce any one of its terms involves the assumption of a right-to renounce the whole. This statement is wholly independent of the reasonableness or unreasonableness, on its own merits, of the desire of Russia to be released from the observation of the stipulations of the Treaty of 1856 respecting the Black Sea. For the question is, in whose hand lies the power of releasing one or more of the - parties from all or any of these stipulaJ tions ? It has always been held that that right belongs only to the Governments who have been parties to the original instrument. The despatches of Prince Gortschakoff appear to assume that any one of the Powers who have signed the engagement may allege that occurrences have taken place which in its opinion are at variance .'. with the provisions of the Treaty ; and, although this view is not shared nor admitted by the co-signatory Powers, may found upon that allegation, not a request to those Governments for the consideration of the case, but an announcement to them that it has emancipated itself, or holds it- ■\ self emancipated, from any stipulations of , the Treaty which it thinks fit to disapprove. "' Yet it is quite evident that the effect of such doctrine, and of any proceeding which, with or without avowal, is founded upon it, is to bring the entire authority and efficacy of treaties under the discretionary control of each one of the 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 oue , ; of th^e parties surrenders a portion of its free agency, by the doctrine and proceed- ■ : U : irig now in question, one of the parties in its sepaiate and individual capacity brings back the entire subject^ into its own control, and remains bound only to itself. Accordingly, Prince Gortschakoff has announced in these despatches the intention of [Russia to continue to observe certain of the. provisions of the treaty. However satisfactory (his may be in itself, it is obviously an expression of the free will ofthat Power which it might at any time alter or withdraw ; and in this it is thjiis open to the same objections as the other -..portions of the. communications, because it implies the right of Russia to annul the 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 .be carefully examined in a friendly spirit by the co-signatory Powers, but whether they are to accept from her the announcement that, by her own act, with? .: out any cousent from them,, 'she has released herself from a solemn covenant. ■■ ■.' . ilineed scarcely say that her Majesty's Government have received this communication with deep regret, because it opens ;;; a -discussion which might unsettle the j j cordial understanding it , has been their 'earnest endeavor: to maintain with the Russian Empire ; and for the above mentioned ' reasons at is impossible for her Majesty'? -Government to give any sanction, on their, part, to the course announce<3l by Prince Gortschakoff.. If, instead of such a declaration, the

Russian Government hud addressed her Majesty's Government and the other Powersjvlio are parties to the Treaty of 1856, and had proposed for consideration with them whether anything has occurred which could be held to amount to an infraction of the Treaty, or whether there is anything in tl c terms which, from altered circumstance.*, presses with undue severity upon Russia, or which, in the course of events, had become unnecessary for the due protection of Turkey, her Majesty's Government would not have refused to ekhinino the question in conceit with the co-signatories to tho Treaty. Whatever might have. been the result of such communications, a risk of future complications and a very dangerous precedent us to Ihe validity of international obligations would have been avoided. I am, &c, (Signed) Granule.