THE TREATY OF PARIS.

Westport Times, Volume V, Issue 767, 24 January 1871, Page 2

THE TREATY OF PARIS.

RUSSIA'S DEMAND AND ENGLAND'S REPLY.

The announcement of the intention of the Russian Government to avail itself of the prostrate condition of France to release itself from some of the restrictions upon its naval action imposed at the close of the Crimean war, has created a wide-spread feeling of dissatisfaction and alarm, both in England and among tho Continental Powers.

The following are the articles whose revision or modification is most likely to be insisted upon by Russia : Article XI. of the treaty concluded at Paris on the 27th of April, 1856, declares that the Black Sea is neutralised ; its waters and its ports thrown open to the mercantile service of every nation, and formally and in perpetuity interdicted to the vessels of war. either of the Powers possessing its Coast, or any other Power. By Article XIII. of the same treaty, the Emperor of Russia and the Sultan engage not to establish or maintain upon tho Black Sea Coast any military marine arsenals. By Convention signed on the 30th of March, 1856, and annexed to the treaty, the Sultan bound himself, so long as he remained at peace, to admit no ship of war of any foreign Power to enter the Straits of Dardanelles and the Bosphorus, thus closing the egress from the Black Sea to the Russian fleet; while Russia engages not to maintain in the Black Sea more than six war steamships of 800 tons at the maximum, and four light steamers of war, not exceeding 200 tons each. These are the stipulations whose revision has always been an object of Russian policy. EARL GRANVILLE'S REPLY. Earl Granville to Sir A. Buchanan. Sir, —Baron Brunnow made to rae 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, jto which you allude in your telegram of yesterday afternoon. In my despatch of yesterday I gave you an account of what passed between us, and I now propose to observe upon Prince Gortschakoff's despatches of the 19th and 20th ult., communicated to me by the Russian Ambassador on that occasion. Prince Gortschakoff declares, on the part of his Imperial Majesty, that the Treaty of 1856 has been infringed in various respects to the prejudice o£ 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 i 3 entitled to renounce those of the Treaty which directly touch her interest. It is then announced that she will no longer be bound by the Treaties which i*estriet her rights of sovereignty in the Black Sea.

"VVe have here an allegation that certain facts have occurred which, in the judgment of Russia, are at variance 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 her. self 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 he released from the observation of the stipulations of the treaty of ISSG, 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 stipulations ? It has always beffl held that that right belongs only to t\» j Governments who have been parties to I the original instrument. The despatches of Prince Gortsckkoif 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 cosignatory Powers, may found upon that allegation, not a request to those Governments for the consideration or j the 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 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 ono another, and for this purpose each one of the parties surrenders a portion of its free agency, by the doctrine and proceedings now in question, one of the parties in its separate and individual capacity brings back the entire subject into its owu coutrol, and remains bound only to itself. Accordingly, Prince Gortschakoff

has announced in these despatches the intention of Eussia to continue to observe certain of the provisions of the treaty. However satisfactory this may be in itself, it is obviously an expression of the free will of that Power, which it might at any time alter or withdraw ; and in this it is thus open to the same objections as the other portious of the communications, because it implies the right of Eussi? 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 Eussia 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, without any consent 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 unsettle the cordial understanding it has been their earnest endeavor to maintain with the Eussiau Empire ; and for the above mentioned reasons it is impossible for her Majesty's Government to give any sanction, on their part, to the course announced by Prince Gortschakoff.

If, instead of such a declaration, the Eussian Government had addressed her Majesty's Government and the other Powers who 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 the terms which, from altered circumstances, 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 examine the question in concert with the co-signatories to the Treaty. Whatever might have been the result of such communications, a risk of future complications, and a very dangerous precedent as to the validity of international obligations would have been avoided. I am, &c., Granville. P.S.—Tou will read and give a copy of this despatch to Prince Gortschakoff.