THE GOVERNMENT AND THE TREATY OF PARIS.
IS the Treaty of Paris still binding on the contracting parties ? This is not a matter that can long remain in uncertainty. If the Treaty of Paris is still in force, England is one of three Powers that have taken on themselves certain special obligations over and above those which are common to all the Powers. Consequently, for England, as well as for Austria and France, it is of the utmost moment to know how she really stands. If she is still bound by the Treaty, certain highly unpleasant consequences necessarily follow. The exist- ence of these consequences is not, of course, a reason for denying Treaty obligations, but it is a reason for calling upon the Government to say plainly what their view of the subject is. It is to the Government that the public naturally turn for information upon questions of this kind, and their estimate of a Treaty which we may any day be summoned to carry out ought not to be left in obscurity for a single day after Parlia- ment has met.
Let us assume, in the first instance, that the Treaty of Paris has not been affected by anything that has happened during the last six months, and see what, on this supposition, England may be called upon to do. By the seventh article of the General Treaty, signed at Paris on the 30th of March, 1856, the Queen of England, the Emperor of Austria, the Emperor of the French, the King of Prussia, the Emperor of Russia, and the King of Sardinia, "engage, each on his part, to respect the independence and the territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire, guarantee in common the strict observance of that engagement, and will in consequence consider any act tending to its violation as a question of general interest." By this clause each of the contracting Powers is bound for itself to respect the independence and the territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire, and in common with the other Powers to take care that this independence and territorial integrity be not attacked from without, and to consider any act which threatens this indepe4dence, or the territorial integrity, as "a question of general interest." These phrases are to some extent in- definite. The guarantee is only joint ; not joint and several, and a violation of the engagement to which it relates will only be considered as "a question of general interest." If no other treaty had been signed at the same time, England, as well as the other contracting Powers, might perhaps plead that she had really pledged herself to very little. The retirement of a single party to the contract destroys the force of a joint guarantee, and even if all the Powers were agreed in considering an attack upon Turkey as a question of general interest, "general interest" is
a term which has many degrees, and it does not of necessity lay those who ute it under any obligation instant or ultimate, of declaring war. England, however, is not bound by this general Treaty only. By a second Treaty, signed at Paris on the 15th of April, 1876, she has undertaken, in concert with Austria and France, to guarantee " jointly and severally" the independ- ence and the integrity of the Ottoman Empire to consider
any infractions of the Treaty of the 30th of Empire, as casas bell, and in the event of any such infraction to come to an understanding with the Porte as to the measures that will have become necessary, and without delay to determine, in concert with France and Austria, the employment of her and their military and naval forces. From the obligations of this second Treaty no escape is possible. Each of the three signa- tories has undertaken, with the other two if they do their duty, without the other two if they neglect their duty, to treat any infraction of the general Treaty as a cans belli. It is true the Porte is not a party to this second Treaty, and consequently, the Porte has no right to call upon England to do anything in execution of it. But the words are framed so as to exclude any need for such an invocation. The English Government are competent to recognise an act tending to the violation of the engagement entered into by the six Powers to respect the independence and the territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire, and under this Treaty they are bound at the instant of recognition to come to an understanding with the Porte as to the measures which have become necessary, and without delay to arrange with their co-signatories as to the employment of their military and naval forces. In presence of so comprehensive an undertaking as this, what would the Porte have gained by being invested with the right to demand help when attacked? The Powers most likely to render help have agreed to do so without waiting to be asked. They are not to pause until the Porte has discovered its danger, and then go to the rescue. They are to go to the rescue so soon as they themselves see that there is danger. On the theory, therefore that the Treaty of Paris is still in force, England is bound to treat the occupation of any part of Turkey by Russian troops as a cams bell. Such an occupation would most certainly be a violation of the independence of the Ottoman Empire, while, considered in its possible results, it would also be an act tending to the violation of the territorial integrity of that Empire. Consequently, a declara- tion of war with Russia must follow withont delay, and nego- tiations must be forthwith opened with France and Austria to ascertain whether they are prepared to do their parts also. But as the obligation entered into by each of the three Powers is several as well as joint, the inability and the un- willingness of Austria and France to fulfil their share do not affect England. She r mains equally bound to declare war against Russia, unless she chooses to be justly called a treaty-breaker, or can plead that degree of weakness which operates as a virtual, though humiliating, discharge from every obligation whatever.
With this grave possibility in view, it is some satisfaction to know that the Government, so far as they and their sup- porters have given any indication of their mind, are of opinion that the Treaty of Paris no longer exists except as a historical monument. But for these indications, it would be necessary for those who, like ourselves, hold that England is absolutely free from the undertakings entered into in 1856, to bring argu- ments in support of our position. But if the Government have already come to the same opinion, there is no need to waste time or labour on this object. Both had better be kept for the many points on which we shall probably find ourselves at issue with the Government. If there is one point on which we and they are agreed, let us accept it and be thankful. What, then, is the evidence on which we rely in support of the pro- position that the Government regard the Treaty of Paris as no longer operative ? It is this. If the Treaty of March 30, 1856, is still binding upon the Powers generally, the Treaty o? April 15, 1856, is equally binding upon England, Austria, and France in particular. It is impossible to make any severance between the two instruments. The Treaty of March 30 is the door barred against Russian aggression. The Treaty of April 15 is the additional padlock supplied, "jointly and severally," by the three Powers then most immediately concerned in checking Russian aggression. It is certain that England, Austria, and France have not agreed to denounce this second Treaty. So far as regards any formal act of theirs the padlock is still on the door, and can only have been undone, if it is undone, by the bursting open of the door. That is to say, if the English Government hold that the Treaty of the 15th of April is no longer binding on this country, it can only be by virtue of a set of circumstances which have made the Treaty of the 30th of March no longer binding on this country. In the absence of any special denunciation of the second Treaty, it stands or falls with the first, and to know the opinion of the Govern- ment on the one is to know their opinion on the other.
The evidence that the Government do not hold the Treaty of the 15th of April to be any longer binding on this country' is to be found in tile statements, so constantly made by those who may be supposed to be in their confidence, that in the event or Russia invading Turkey, England will stand apart from the quarrel, and only interfere when her own interests are concerned. It is impossible that any one making this statement should believe that England is bound, severally as well as jointly, to consider any attack upon the independence and the territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire as a cases belli, to come to an understanding with the Porte as to the measures which have become necessary to resist it, and to de- termine without delay the employment of her military and naval forces. It will not, we presume, be contended that an invasion of Turkey by Russia would not amount to an attack on the in- dependence and the territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire. If Russian troops enter Turkey, it will be for the purpose of compelling the Porto to do certain things which they do not choose to do, or for the purpose of punishing the Porte be- cause they have not done them, or for both purposes combined. In the first case, the independence of the Ottoman Empire is directly threatened ; in the second case, the territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire is directly threatened ; in the last case, both its independence and its territorial integrity are directly threatened. If ever, therefore, such a contingency as that contemplated by the Treaty of April 15, 1856, can arise, it will arise when Russia invades Turkey. Can it be contended that England will be performing her special obligation of treating any infraction of the Treaty of Paris as a casus belli, if she stands apart from the contest so long as her own interests are in no way threatened? Scarcely. England, Austria, and France did not jointly and severally guarantee the interests of England. They did not undertake to consider any attack upon the interests of England as a cases belli, or in the event of such an attack being made, to determine without delay the em- ployment of their military and naval forces. Austria and France were and are our very good friends, but they are not so fond of us as all that. What they undertook and what England undertook was to guarantee the independence and integrity of the Ottoman Empire, to consider any attack upon this independence and integrity as a cases belli, and in the event of such an attack being made, to determine without delay upon the military and naval measures to be taken to resist it. If England is only concerned to interfere in a war between Russia and Turkey at the point where her own in- terests are affected by the progress of hostilities, she is no longer bound by the Treaty of the 15th of April, 1856. If she is no longer bound by the Treaty of the 15th of April, she can only have become released from it by a set of circumstances which must have been equally fatal to the Treaty of the 30th of March in the same year. The Government. have informally, but positively, allowed it to be understood that they do not intend to declare war against Russia, in the event of her attacking Turkey, until the interests of England are involved. Consequently, they hold that England is free from the obligations of the Treaty of the 15th of April ; and as the Treaty of the 30th of March—the Treaty of Paris—stands or falls with the Treaty of the 15th of April, they hold that England is free from the obligation, of the Treaty of Paris.
Previous page
