changes in the settlement on which the European balance of power rested had compelled Russia to review her political position. The part of that settlement which most directly affected her was the Treaty of 1856; a Convention appended to it limited the naval power of Russia in the Black Sea, and the Treaty, in return, neutralized that Sea. But while the former portion of the arrangement effectually weakened Russia, the latter was plainly powerless to protect her. Turkey was not restricted in her navy in the Archipelago or the Straits, nor England and France in the Mediterranean. As the Straits were only closed, by Treaty, in time of peace, Russia was always exposed on a declaration of war to be attacked on her coast-line even by a weaker State at a disadvantage—a disadvantage rendered the more oppressive by the introduction of ironclad vessels of war since 1856, and the consequent increased difficulty of improvising defence. Urging so far the unequal operation of the neutralization policy, Prince Gortschakoff went on farther to point out that the Treaty of 1856 had been violated in important particulars. Moldavia and Wallachia, the position of which had been fixed and guaranteed by the Treaty, had been permitted to pass through revolution into union, and to elect a foreign prince. "The representative of Russia," added the Prince, "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." Furthermore, on several occasions the neutrality of the Black Sea had been violated under various pretexts by the admission of warvessels and even "whole squadrons," within the Straits. The Czar, in view of these facts, "could not 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," nor could he "admit, de facto, that the security of Russia should depend on a fiction which has not stood the test of time." His Imperial Majesty therefore declined to recognize any longer the neutralization of the Black Sea, and withdrew from the Naval Convention, restoring, at the same time, to the Sultan the full exercise of his rights, and "loyally informing" the other Powers of his action. He added an assurance that "he" had no wish to revive the Eastern Question, that he adhered to the principles of the Treaty of 1856 as fixing the position of Turkey, and was ready to enter into any understanding to this effect with the other Powers.

A despatch designed to justify the Circular to the English Government was handed at the same time to Lord Granville by Baron Brunnow. It referred to the negotiations for a Conference in 1866, when it was urged on the part of Russia that the occurrence of certain eventualities modifying the status quo in the East must lead to a revision of the Treaty. Lord Russell at the time admitted that any such change in the situation must be followed by a change in the obligations imposed on the Powers. These eventualities had not occurred; but it will not be disputed, the Prince affirmed, that

the manner in which Roumania has become independent has been an infringement of the Treaty, which casts doubt on its binding force. The Emperor's decision implied no change in his Eastern policy, or in his perfect accord with England,-" the best guarantee for the preservation of peace and the balance of power in Europe." On the same day that these despatches were received by him, Lord Granville hastened to inform Sir A. Buchanan, our Ambassador at St. Petersburg, of the fact, adding that, considering the importance and suddenness of the communication, he had declined to make any reply without consulting his colleagues. The Government were determined, he said, "to measure their words on all questions involving international difficulties, so that there might not be the slightest chance of their going beyond that to which they intended strictly to adhere." On the following day the Foreign Secretary was able to make a longer and more weighty communication. Recapitulating Prince Gortschakoff's complaints and final declaration, Lord Granville said :

"An allegation is made 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 herself from certain other stipulations of that instrument."

If a Power bound by Treaty can renounce a part of its obligations, he argued, it may renounce the whole. In the present case the question was not whether the claims of Russia to be released are reasonable, but whether one party to a Treaty may, of its own accord and without discussion, announce its immunity from some or all of its provisions. The right of releasing any party has ever been held to belong, not to one, but to all the parties; and Prince Gortschakoff's doctrine would lead to "the entire destruction of Treaties in their essence." Treaties are agreements made binding by a partial surrender of the free will of each party, but if each may at pleasure bring back the subject into his own control, the surrender and binding force of the arrangement clearly becomes illusory. The expressed intention of Russia to abide by the rest of the Treaty was, in this point of view, as objectionable as her renunciation of the obnoxious clauses for it was merely an intimation of her individual free will, which she may at any time alter. The Powers, then, had nothing to do with the desire of Russia to be released from her former engagements; they had to consider "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.” Lord Granville expressed "deep regret" at the opening of a discussion which "might unsettle the cordial understanding" between England and Russia, but he firmly refused "to give any sanction to the course announced by Prince Gortschakoff." If Russia had made Complaint of the alleged infractions of the Treaty, or had protested gainst the severity of its pressure in altered circumstances, the

British Government "would not have refused to examine the question in concert with the co-signatories to the Treaty." Thus, "a risk of future complications and a very dangerous precedent as to the validity of international obligations would have been avoided."

It will be perceived that Lord Granville, taking his stand upon the faith of treaties, declined to enter into any argument respecting the grounds of complaint advanced by Russia. A tabular statement, however, of the instances in which foreign ships of war had been allowed to pass the Straits, and of other cases in which a question had arisen as to the passage of such ships, was published next to Lord Granville's despatch. Count Beust subsequently alluded to these cases as insignificant, and, in fact, we find that there were only ten altogether, and seven in which, though the passage of war-ships was contemplated, no violation of the treaty had been shown. Of the ten actual infractions three were by American vessels, two of which came on complimentary visits to the Sultan; two were Austrian ships, the firman for one having been granted in courtesy to Prince Adalbert of Bavaria, and the other admitted with her by mistake as intended for the service of the mission; one was a Prussian vessel, which was mistaken for the King's yacht, and entered the Straits on this misunderstanding; one was a French vessel conveying the Persian Ambassador back to his country; one was her Majesty's ship "Gannet," carrying Sir H. Bulwer on a visit to Kustendji, against the admission of which a Russian protest was made; and the remaining one was the Russian ship of war "Alexander Newsky," in which the Grand Duke Alexis embarked for his cruise in the Mediterranean without remonstrance. Two small Austrian vessels and a transport also passed through the Straits in 1869 to escort the Emperor from Varna to Constantinople, and the Russian remonstrance against their passage was withdrawn on the discovery that they were armed with only two guns apiece.

The second subject of Russian complaint, likewise passed over in silence by Lord Granville, was the union and independence of Roumania, which was protested against, Prince Gortschakoff alleged, by the Russian representative at the time. M. Visconti Venosta, in a despatch of later date than Lord Granville's, recalled to the memory of the Russian Chancellor these remarkable words, contained in a letter from Prince Gortschakoff to General Ignatieff, recognizing the election of Prince Charles of Hohenzollern as Hospodar of Roumania :

"The Imperial Cabinet can only applaud a result as fully in harmony with the traditional sympathy which binds Russia to these people-her co-religionists-as with her desire to see the Ottoman Empire consolidated by the satisfaction of the legitimate wishes and wants of the Christian races which inhabit it."

The Italian Minister pointed to the difficulty of reconciling this language of congratulation with the alleged protest.

Lord Granville's first care was to send to Sir H. Elliot, at Constantinople, copies of the Russian despatches and of his own replies, and to reassure the Porte by pointing out the determination of England not to admit the assumption of Russia that she was privileged to break the Treaty of her own free will. To Lord Lyons at Tours a similar communication was made; but in the case of Prussia, Count Bismarck's unavoidable absence from Berlin during the siege of Paris rendered it necessary to send Mr. Odo Russell as a special envoy to Versailles with the Russian and English despatches. This was the more needful, as a general doubt existed respecting the relations of Prussia and Russia in regard to Eastern policy. On the 12th of November Lord Granville addressed Count Bernstorff on this subject, asking whether there was any reason to suppose that an engagement of mutual support existed in the matter between the two Northern Powers, and adding that, unless there was such an engagement, the declaration was as little courteous to Prussia as to any other of the Powers. Count Bernstorff professed his ignorance and his surprise at the form of the Circular; he stated that Mr. Odo Russell would be welcome at Versailles.

In default of instructions from his Court, Baron Brunow decided on maintaining a reserve, and declining to reply to Lord Granville's arguments. The Austrian Ambassador was the first to bring the news that his Government had adhered to the course taken by England. Count Beust, in answer to the Circular, confessed that he had expected some proposal for the revision of the Treaty of 1856, but that "the one-sided and sudden solution. announced by Russia was a melancholy surprise, provoking irritation, establishing a dangerous precedent, and disturbing the East." Austria would treat the question "without passion and without entrainement," but would reserve full liberty of action. In the meantime, Lord Granville had been recommending the Turkish Ambassador that no precipitate action should be taken by Turkey, and had advised the Porte to communicate freely with the other Powers, and to reply to the Circular in terms similar to those used in the English despatch.

The Provisional Government at Tours, represented in the Foreign Department by M. de Chaudordy, were late in receiving official news of the step announced by Russia. The Italian Government hesitated, though pressed by the Cabinet of Vienna to make an early declaration of its policy, and desired to learn, first, the reception of the Circular in Turkey, and, next, the sentiments of England. M. Visconti Venosta, however, expressed to the Russian Minister the pain and surprise that the Circular had produced in him; he added that Italy was willing to co-operate with the co-signatories of the Treaty in revising any provisions that might seem unjust towards Russia, always saving the integrity and safety of Turkey. Sir A. Paget, who communicated this to Lord Granville, "was enabled to state" that the Italian Govern

ment was desirous to act in unison with the English and Austrian Cabinets.

Sir A. Buchanan on the 16th of November presented Prince Gortschakoff with Lord Granville's reply of the 10th. The Prince said he would answer the English arguments calmly, and repudiated any but the most amicable intentions towards the Porte. He then returned to the discussion of his objections to the Treaty as set forth in the Circular, but Sir A. Buchanan pointed out the irrelevancy of this debate. Lord Granville had not entered into these objections, but had demurred in limine to the form of the Russian "renunciation," resting, as it did, on the assumption that any one Power signing a treaty might at any time terminate its obligations without consulting the co-signatories. The Prince declined to discuss this point, saying that "the Emperor's decision was irrevocable," and that Turkey, by assenting, would secure Russian goodwill; otherwise the consequence would be dangerous; for, though the policy of Russia was "entirely pacific," the Christian populations of Turkey would rise in arms at the first misunderstanding between the Governments. The Chancellor finally expressed surprise at the respect for the sanctity of treaties professed by the English Government, which had acquiesced in the extinction of the Germanic Confederation and the Kingdom of Hanover in 1866.

On the same day that Prince Gortschakoff was criticizing Lord Granville's answer to the Circular Count Beust was despatching his reply from Vienna. After quoting Article XIV. of the Treaty (already cited) he said,—

"We could not conceive nor admit a doubt as to the absolute force of this reciprocal engagement, even should one or other of the contracting parties think itself in a position to advance the most substantial considerations against the maintenance of any of the stipulations of a Treaty of which it had been agreed to declare beforehand that it could never be either annulled or modified without the assent of all the Powers that signed it."

Unlike the British Minister, the Austrian Chancellor proceeded to notice the Russian arguments for modifying the Treaty. The inequality complained of in the original arrangement might have prevented Russia from signing the Treaty or give ground for its revision after discussion now, "but it can never authorize an arbitrary solution." No more could the alleged infractions of the Treaty. It was Turkey, not Russia, that had reason to complain of the change introduced by Roumanian independence. As for the passage of warships through the Straits, "their appearances were certainly of a most inoffensive character," and in any case Russia might have met them with a protest. In conclusion Count Beust expressed the "painful regret," the "profound surprise," with which his Government had learnt the determination of the Czar, and called the "serious attention" of Russia to the consequences. In answer to a more private despatch addressed to Austria by the Russian Chancellor, which reminded the Austrian Government that it had itself