[Paris Conferences. Protocol. Peace with Russia.] "State Papers," vol. xlvi, page Adoption of 104 No. 15. Sovereignty of Turkey over Montenegro.* Paris, 26th March, 1856. No. 16. Adoption of Articles XV to XXX of General Treaty of Peace; Separate Convention between Russia and Turkey relative to Black Sea; Convention for Closing Dardanelles and Bosphorus to Vessels of War. ...... ..... Paris, 27th March, 1856. No. 17. Adoption of Concluding Articles of General Treaty of Paris, 2nd April, 1856. No. 23. Maritime Law (Privateering, Neutral Trade, Blockades) || .... 107 113 114 115 116 117 120 No. 24. Signature of Maritime Law Declaration.§ * See also Conditions of Turkey of 31st August, 1862, and Note, page + See note, page 1579. 1438. See also Treaty between France and Monaco of 2nd February, 1861. § See Declaration of 16th April, 1856. See next page. The question of Poland was not discussed at these Conferences, see Note, page 1685. [Mediation.] No. 269.-PROTOCOL OF CONFERENCE between Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia, Russia, Sardinia, and Turkey, suggesting the reference of Disputes between Foreign Powers to the Mediation of a Third Power, previous to Hostilities. Paris, 14th April, 1856.* (Translation as laid before Parliament.†) Present: The Plenipotentiaries of Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia, Russia, Sardinia, and Turkey. (Extract.) Mediation previous to Hostilities. THE Earl of Clarendon having demanded permission to lay before the Congress a proposition which it appears to him ought to be favourably received, states that the calamities of War are still too present to every mind not to make it desirable to seek out every expedient calculated to prevent their return; that a stipulation had been inserted in Article VIII of the Treaty of Peace (No. 264), recommending that in case of Difference between the Porte and one or more of the other signing Powers, recourse should be had to the Mediation of a friendly State before resorting to force. The first Plenipotentiary of Great Britain conceives that this happy innovation might receive a more general application, and thus become a barrier against conflicts which frequently only break forth because it is not always possible to enter into explanation and to come to an understanding. He proposes, therefore, to agree upon a resolution calculated to afford to the Maintenance of Peace that chance of duration hereafter, without prejudice, however, to the Independence of Governments. Count Walewski declares himself authorised to support the idea expressed by the first Plenipotentiary of Great Britain: he gives the assurance that the Plenipotentiaries of France are wholly disposed to concur in the insertion in the Protocol of a wish which, being fully in accordance with the tendencies of our epoch, would not in any way fetter the free action of Govern ments. Not embodied in the General Treaty of 30th March, 1856, except in so far as related to Turkey. (See Article VIII.) + For French version, see "State Papers," vol. xlvi, p. 133. [Mediation.] Count Buol would not hesitate to concur in the opinion of the Plenipotentiaries of Great Britain and of France, if the resolution of the Congress is to have the form indicated by Count Walewski, but he could not take, in the name of his Court, an absolute engagement calculated to limit the Independence of the Austrian Cabinet. The Earl of Clarendon replies that each Power is and will be the sole judge of the requirements of its honour and of its interests: that it is by no means his intention to restrict the authority of the Governments, but only to afford them the opportunity of not having recourse to Arms whenever Differences may be adjusted by other means. Baron Manteuffel gives the assurance that the King, his angust Master, completely shares the ideas set forth by the Earl of Clarendon; that he therefore considers himself authorised to adhere to them, and to give them the utmost development which they admit of. Count Orloff, while admitting the wisdom of the proposal made to the Congress, considers that he must refer to his Court respecting it, before he expresses the opinion of the Plenipotentiaries of Russia. Count Cavour, before he gives his opinion, wishes to know whether, in the intention of the author of the proposition, the wish to be expressed by the Congress would extend to Military Interventions directed against de facto Governments, and quotes, as an instance, the Intervention of Austria in the Kingdom of Naples in 1821. Lord Clarendon replies that the wish of the Congress should allow of the most general application; he observes that if the Good Offices of another Power had induced the Government of Greece to respect the Laws of Neutrality, France and England would very probably have abstained from occupying the Piræus with their troops. He refers to the efforts made by the Cabinet of Great Britain in 1823, in order to prevent the Armed Inter vention which took place at that time in Spain. Count Walewski adds, that there is no question of stipulating for a right or of taking an engagement; that the wish expressed by the Congress cannot in any case oppose limits to the liberty of judgment of which no Power can divest itself in questions affecting its dignity; that there is therefore no inconvenience in attaching a general character to the idea entertained by the Earl of Clarendon, and giving to it the most extended application. [Mediation.] Count Buol says that Count Cavour, in speaking in another sitting of the occupation of the Legations by Austrian Troops, forgot that other Foreign Troops have been invited into the Roman States. To-day, while speaking of the Occupation by Austria of the Kingdom of Naples in 1821, he forgets that that occupation was the result of an understanding between the 5 Great Powers assembled at the Congress of Laybach. In both cases he attributes to Austria the merit of an initiative and of a spontaneous action, which the Austrian Plenipotentiaries are far from claiming for her. The Intervention, adverted to by the Plenipotentiary of Sardinia, took place, he adds, in consequence of the discussions of the Congress of Laybach; it therefore comes within the scope of the ideas expressed by Lord Clarendon. Similar cases might perhaps recur, and Count Buol does not allow that an Intervention carried into effect in consequence of an agreement come to between the 5 Great Powers, can become the object of remonstrances of a State of the second order. Count Buol approves the proposition in the shape that Lord Clarendon has presented it, as having a humane object; but he could not assent to it if it were wished to give to it too great an extension, or to deduce from it consequences favourable to de facto Governments, and to doctrines which he cannot admit. He desires besides that the Conference, at the moment of terminating its labours, should not find itself compelled to discuss irritating questions, calculated to disturb the perfect harmony which has not ceased to prevail among the Plenipotentiaries. Count Cavour declares that he is fully satisfied with the explanations which he has elicited, and he accedes to the proposition submitted to the Congress. Whereupon the Plenipotentiaries do not hesitate to express, in the name of their Governments, the wish that States between which any serious misunderstanding may arise, should, before appealing to Arms, have recourse, as far as circumstances might allow, to the Good Offices of a friendly Power. The Plenipotentiaries hope that the Governments not represented at the Congress will unite in the sentiment which has inspired the wish recorded in the present Protocol.* (The Signatures follow.) For List of Accessions, see page 1284. [Integrity of the Ottoman Empire.] No. 270.-TREATY between Great Britain, Austria, and France, guaranteeing the Independence and Integrity of the Ottoman Empire. Signed at Paris, 15th April, 1856. Preamble. Reference to Treaty of 30th March, 1856. 1. Guarantee of Independence and Integrity of the Ottoman Empire. 2. Any Infraction of Treaty of 30th March, 1856, to be considered as a casus belli. 3. Ratifications. (Translation as laid before Parliament.*) Reference to Treaty of 30th March, 1856. HER Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, and His Majesty the Emperor of the French, wishing to settle between themselves the combined action which any infraction of the stipulations of the Peace of Paris (No. 264) would involve on their part, have named for that purpose as their Plenipotentiaries, that is to say: Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the Right Honourable George William Frederick Earl of Clarendon, Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, &c.; and the Right Honourable Henry Richard Charles Baron Cowley, Her Majesty's Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to His Majesty the Emperor of the French, &c.; His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, the Sieur Charles Ferdinand Count de Buol-Schauenstein, President of the Conference of Ministers, &c.; and the Sieur Joseph Alexander Baron de Hübner, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the Court of France, &c.; And His Majesty the Emperor of the French, the Sieur Alexander Count Colonna Walewski, his Minister and Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, &c.; and the Sieur Francis Adolphus Baron de Bourqueney, his Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to His Imperial and Royal Apostolic Majesty, &c. ; *For French Version, see "State Papers," vol. xlvi, p. 25. |