must say do not appear to me to be easily reconciled with the letter of the ninth article of the Treaty of Paris. . . . [The Government] have laboured to maintain the Treaty of 1856, but the Treaty of 1856 can hardly be said any longer to exist. Sir William Harcourt was willing to leave the matter

exactly where it was left at the Conference by Lord Salisbury's declaration that the treaty could not be one-sided, that it placed Turkey under obligations she had not performed, and therefore the obligation on the other side was at an end. The arrangement, Lord Salisbury said, was founded upon the assumption that Turkey would reform herself, and that as. sumption had been falsified. With this statement we might be satisfied, and it followed that the Protocol was signed on the assumption that the ninth article of the treaty, forbidding interference in the internal affairs of Turkey, was not in force. Sir Stafford Northcote, replying to Lord Hartington and Sir William Harcourt on behalf of the Government, repudiated the charge of having set aside the Treaty of Paris.

The communication of the Firman by Article 9 does not thereby give the Powers any right of interference; but there is nothing in the article which takes from the Powers any right to concert among themselves with regard to those matters which in Turkey or elsewhere may seem to them dangerous to the peace of Europe.1

On another occasion, Mr. Courtney urged as a general proposition of International Law that Treaties "die of inanition." 2

This seemed to be a sound proposition, that any convention must be considered to remain in existence only so long as the condition under which it was contracted remained reasonably the same. Rebus sic stantibus, the obligations remained; but if the circumstances altered, the obligations disappeared.-Courtney, H. of C. Feb. 16th, 1877.

The inapplicability of the treaty to existing circumstances was the result of Turkey's failure to perform her part of the bargain. Hence we have the argument from mere change of circumstances and the argument from Turkey's default very closely connected. Most stress was usually laid upon the argument that the treaty obligation could not be unilateral, and that the failure of Turkey to perform her covenant released the other parties from their

1 It is remarkable how nearly this accords with the argument put by Mr. Gladstone (ante, p. 124).

2 The phrase does not appear in the Times report of Mr. Courtney's own speech, but it was attributed to him by Mr. Evelyn Ashley, who spoke in the same debate.

obligations towards her whatever might be the case as between each other.

The Prime Minister has repeatedly dwelt upon the immense importance of maintaining the faith of treaties. Now mark my words. The vital question for us is this-Are the treaties of 1856, entered into at the time of the Crimean War, in force, or are they not? (Cries of "No, no!") Are they in force-I mean not as to the honourable obligations they may entail among the Powers that have observed them-but in force between us and Turkey My opinion is given in a sentence: Turkey has entirely broken those treaties and trampled them under foot. I recognise in them no force whatever, so far as regards investing her with any titles towards us with regard to her independence and integrity and her admission into the family of European nations. In my opinion, all these matters are to be regulated on general grounds of justice and of prudence, but the stipulations in favour of Turkey no longer exist. (Cheers.) Now this is a most serious question. There may be, and I rather expect there will be, those who will tell you that these treaties still exist; and what I wish to point out to you is what these treaties contain, and how they bind and fetter your action if they are in truth still valid instruments.-Gladstone.1

...

What I contend is that it is impossible to separate from any of these guarantees, not only the general alteration of circumstances that may occur, but also the conduct of the party on behalf of whom the guarantee is given. [Did ministers consider] that we are absolved from the obligations asserted in the Treaty of 1856, and that we are free to act as policy, justice, and humanity may seem to direct and require.-Gladstone, H. of C. Feb. 16th, 1877.

Mr. Gladstone interrupted Mr. Hardy, who replied to him,2 to explain that he meant absolved with respect to Turkey. Turkey, he contended, had lost her rights under the treaties, though she might still be bound. Mr. Hardy retorted by asking when was it that Turkey had lost her rights, since it seemed they subsisted in 1871. Thus in rejoinder to the argument from Turkey's default we meet with the argument which Mr. Gladstone in the treaty debate of February 16th, 1877, spoke of as "Born on the Lord Mayor's day at the Guildhall." 3

We have believed that that Peace would be best maintained by an observance of the treaties in which all the great Powers of Europe have joined. Those treaties are not antique and dusty obsolete documents. They are not instruments devised under a

1 At Taunton, Jan. 27th, 1877, post, chap. xiv. § 7.

2 Post, chap. xv. § 2. In this Mr. Gladstone was not quite accurate. Mr. Disraeli used the same argument in the House of Commons at the close of the session of 1876.

state of circumstances different from those that exist, and illadapted to the spirit of the age in which we live. They are the most recent of the important treaties to which England is a party. I am amused sometimes when I hear the great Treaty of Paris spoken of as a treaty negotiated some twenty years ago, and, so far, entitled to respect, but not as an instrument to regulate the conduct of Governments. But let me remind you, my lord, that it is hardly five years since in 1871-in this very capital, the Treaty of Paris was revised by the most eminent statesmen of Europe, among whom I will generously account those who preceded us in office. It was revised and re-enacted under circumstances which made that re enactment most solemn, and that treaty lays it down as the best security for the peace of Europe that we should maintain the independence and territorial integrity of the Turkish empire.-Beaconsfield.1

On another occasion Lord Derby said :

It could not be contended that so great a change had come over Turkey in those six years. This was one ground why the argument from Turkey's default was unsound. Another ground was that these stipulations were entered into, not for the benefit of Turkey, but for the benefit of Europe.-H. of L. Feb. 8th, 1877.

As to the reply to this argument, Mr. Courtney said Mr. Gladstone had made it clear that the Treaty of London referred simply to the Black Sea clauses.

The obligation then, being between the guaranteeing Powers, could not be appealed to by any one outside of them, and if the guaranteeing Powers chose to retire from that obligation, the obligation, whatever it was, ceased altogether.-II. of C. Feb. 16th, 1877.

It is noticeable that Mr. Courtney did not base his argument on the contention that we once were under an obligation to Turkey from which she by her conduct had discharged us, but on the contention that the general treaty having been made for the sake of Europe, the Powers came under no obligation to Turkey, and Turkey under no obligation to the Powers under it.

Just as one contention in the Treaty controversy takes us back to "anti-Turkism," so another contention carries us on to "antiRussism." There were a few who contended that the treaties bound us to support Turkey against Russia, and to call upon Austria and France to assist us in doing so.

Lord

He

Stratheden and Campbell urged this course. complained that the Treaties of 1856 were utterly unexecuted,

At the Guildhall, Nov. 9th, 1876. See port, chap. xiii. § 9.

K

while all the pretexts for neglecting them had long ago been answered. The proclamation of neutrality "only serves to flatter, where it is a duty to withstand." H. of L. Feb. 26th & July 19th,

1877.

Lord Robert Montagu contended that by the treaties England, France, and Austria had bound themselves to make war upon Russia if she should violate the independence or the integrity of the Ottoman Empire; and the refusal of any one of the Powers to fulfil the obligation was not to act as a release to the others. H. of C. Feb. 16th, 1877.

Lord Derby was very far indeed from endorsing this contention :

We guarantee in common the strict observance of that engagemont, that is, wo each undertake to observe it, and to do what we can to make others observe it, but there is no shadow of a promise in that treaty of Paris] to make non-observance by other Powers a casus belli the words stop short of that, they carefully avoid any such pledge, in fact they point directly to a different course of action, namely, to collective discussion and negotiation. As far as that treaty is concerned, therefore, we are in no sense bound by a promise to fight for Turkey.... [The Tripartite Treaty is undoubtedly of a more binding character, since it pledges each of the Powers to regard any infraction of the former treaty as a casus belli, and on the invitation of the others to concert measures with the Porte. But that is not an engagement entered into with the Porte. It is not an engagement to which the Porte is a party. It does not therefore bind us in any way except to France and Austria; and unless France and Austria call upon us to interfere-a step which in existing circumstances they are not in the least likely to take it binds us to nothing at Derby, H. of L. Feb. 8th, 1877.

all.

But in spite of Lord Derby's minimising, Mr. Gathorne Hardy's reply to Mr. Gladstone's interrogation on February 16th, 1877,1 left the question in "a somewhat unsatisfactory position," as Lord Hartington took occasion to remark on February 22nd. A distinction was drawn between the Treaty of Paris and the Tripartite Treaty.

Lord Rosebery pressed upon the Government that we should take steps to release ourselves from the obligations of the Tripartite Treaty by amicable arrangement with the other Signatories, in accordance with the protocol of 1871 and before the casus faderis should arise. "The question is urgent. If we choose to disregard the validity of the treaty, a vital blow is struck at the validity of all treaties." Lord Derby utterly refused to contemplate the possibility that France or Austria might call upon us

1 Past, chap. xv. § 2.

under the Tripartite Treaty, and would not admit that the question was in any way practical.—II. of L. April 19th & May 14th, 1877.

Mr. Courtney, while contending that the treaties had lapsed from changed circumstances, at the same time urged that we should not wait to proclaim our freedom till Austria came to us and claimed our action.-H. of C. Feb. 16th, 1877.

With respect to the question of the treaty rights and obligations, the distinction between the Independence and the Integrity of the Ottoman Empire is of importance. Many of those who contended that the treaties had become of none effect to restrain any intermeddling, or to bind us to resist it, were prepared to admit that quite other considerations would apply if it became a question of the partition of Turkey. England, France, and Austria all took part in the Conference of Constantinople, and after that, at all events, it would hardly lie in the mouth of either one of them to call on either of the others to make the intermeddling of any outside Power a casus belli. But the three might still be bound to one another to assist in maintaining by force of arms if necessary the principle that the territories comprised in the Ottoman Empire should not be annexed by any other Power.

ANTI-RUSSISM AND PHILO-TURKISM.

We now come to the notions of which the distinguishing feature is hostility to Russia. These constitute the specific view in relation to the controversies of the time which (since the word Russophobia is invested with wider and older associations) we will call anti-Russism. These notions fall into three great groups :(1) Those which regard Russia as threatening the European system.

(2) Those which regard Russia as threatening England in relation to India and her Asiatic interests.

(3) A number of notions founded on more general considerations.

The last group, it will be observed, is of a character which may be called "sentimental" in contradistinction to the "diplomatic” 1 character of the first two. It is a little difficult, however, to treat them entirely apart. It is only in combination that the constituent

1 See post, Appendix to Part II. as to the sense in which the terms "sentimental" and "diplomatic" are intended to be used.