SETTLEMENT OF THE EASTERN QUESTION.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume VI, Issue 91, 19 April 1871, Page 4

SETTLEMENT OF THE EASTERN QUESTION.

0 London, March 17th. — The procotols of . the proceedings on the Black Sea (Question : will be laid ou the table of the House of Commons to-ni«xht. They are signed by the plenipotentiaries of seven powers. Their general features are conciliatory in tone on the part' of Russia, and show ,a willingness on the part of Turkey to accept the semi-neutralization of the Black Sea, arid deference of the Convention to the wishes of either power. The Conference met January's! 7th. Lord Granville was chosenyPresidetifc. Granville regretted the' "absence of the plenipotentiary from France, and declared that the object of ■ the Conference was to examine the Black Sea Question without partisanship, and to discuss with perfect liberty the Russian proposals for the revision of the treaty of Paris. - Baron Brunnow made a statement which contained no trace of imperative tone, Gortschakoff's circular and Brunnow's speech were most conciliatory throughout, and were repeated in the same spirit by Mansour3 Pacha. The Conference then went to work on the declaration to the effect, that plenipotentiaries recoguise it as an essential principle ofjthe right of nations ' that no power can sftake^off engagements of treaty or modifg^fcT strpnlatifras, except with the corajgfit of the contracting parties. r I ■ On this a frienijly understanding was arrived at, and on Mtrch 13th the Duke de Broglie gave his adhesion to i^ ■. A second meeting took jplace January 24th, when Brunnow more fully staged? that changes had taken place since''*l!3s6, and urged that all treatip be^udged by the new considerations Arising in the interval. He contended s .Mfa| the treaty of Paris really perpetuated Irritations by wounding Russia's national sentiments. The Turkish Embassador combated the Russian Ambassador, and declared that Turkey was ftflly satis6ed with the treaty, but if other ? powers thought rijrht to admit the Russian demand on that Government, and would give guarantees equivalent and compatible with the rights and security of the Ottoman Empire, he was 'authorised to concur with other plenipotentiaries, and while recognising the justice of the I'u.rkish objections to adhere to their former expression that Turkey consent must be devoid of equivalents. At the third'sitting, February 3rd, on treaty, four ' articles were proposed by Earl Granville, The second article gave to Turkey the power to introduce ships of war of the non-riverian powers iuto the , Black Sea only if compelled to do so for the security of the Ottoman Empire. Mausours Pacha objected to the phraseology " non-rlverian," as restrictive to Turkey and' offensive to Russia. A. long debate, generally in opposition, followed, the representative of the Turkish . Government pleading his instructions as very peremptory. At the same meeting, ' the secondary question of the Danube commission was' first mooted, and it was ' agreed to insert the arrangement therein . in the principal treaty. At the fourth meeting, February 7th, no instructions had been received by the . representatives, and nothing done; j Ati, the fifth meeting, which was held : on the \ 13th instant, the Due de Broglie was in-" i troduced. He declared that the French Government saw no sufficient reason to modify the treaty of Paris, but now,' willingly accepted the arrangement which ..had been partially concluded. , • . / The Italian Minister met the objection of the Turkish Minister by proposing -a new article, in which the words, "Friendly ' and allied, powers " should be substituted for <{ non-riverian powers." This amendment^was accepted freely by Turkey, <and , the other powers. There were no differences oik .other circles after their completion, ■the Turkish and- Russian Ministers to conclude a : convention ' abrogating the stipulations of the treaty of Paris relative to" : the number and- strength of their .respective "fleets in the Black.. Sea. ,