HL Deb 15 June 1876 vol 229 cc1888-92
EARL DE LA WARR

rose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has any objection to state in what position this country stands with regard to the Treaty signed at Paris on the 15th of April, 1856, between Great Britain, Austria, and France, guaranteeing the independence and integrity of the Ottoman Empire; and, whether the Suzerainty exercised by Turkey over the Tributary States of Servia and Roumania is included in that guarantee? The noble Earl said, he thought it would materially assist to enlighten the public mind on a subject which at the present time, owing to its great importance, much engrossed public attention, if, without inconvenience to Her Majesty's Government, it could be stated how far—to what extent—this country is pledged by Treaty to maintain the independence and territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire. The Question which he proposed to put to the noble Earl at the head of the Foreign Office he had endeavoured to separate as far as possible from collateral questions of great interest at the present moment, believing that their Lordships would be put in possession of all information as to the state of affairs in the East at the earliest possible time; but it seemed to him important to know—more especially as regarded the future—what the exact position of this country was with reference to guarantees by Treaties of the integrity and independence of Turkey. This was the more necessary as since the Treaty of Paris, which was, perhaps, sufficiently distinct, other Treaties had been entered into; and, as would be in their Lordships' remembrance, one important part of the Treaty of Paris relating to Russian ships of war in the Black Sea had been abrogated by the Treaty signed at London in 1871. He was not aware, however, that anything had been done to weaken the force of the Treaty of Paris or of the Treaty which almost immediately followed it with reference to the Question which he had put to his noble Friend; but events had occurred, and might occur again, which might make it incumbent upon the Government of this country to consider further what course they should pursue. In order to make clear what he wished to bring under the notice of the noble Earl he must ask their Lordships to allow him to refer for a moment to the Treaties which bore upon this subject. By the Treaty of Paris, signed March 30, 1856, Art. 7, it was recited that— Their Majesties engage, each on his part, to respect the independence and 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. Then, as regarded the tributary States, there was Art. 22, which recited that— The Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia shall continue to enjoy under the suzerainty of the Porte and under the guarantee of the Contracting Powers the privileges and immunities of which they are in possession. Next, with reference to Servia, it was recited by Art. 28, that— The Principality of Servia shall continue to hold of the Sublime Porte in conformity with the Imperial Hatts which fix and determine its rights and immunities, placed henceforward under the collective guarantee of the Contracting Powers. In consequence the said Principality shall preserve its independent and national administration as well as full liberty of worship, of legislation, of commerce, and of navigation. Now, the Treaty of Paris was followed very shortly by another Treaty between England, Austria, and France, reiterating the guarantee of the integrity and independence of the Ottoman Empire, and in stronger terms, by Art. 1— The High Contracting Parties guarantee jointly and severally the independence and the integrity of the Ottoman Empire recorded in the Treaty concluded at Paris on the 30th of March, 1856. Again, Art. 2 recited that— Any infraction of the said Treaty will be considered by the Powers signing the present Treaty as casus belli. They will come to an understanding with the Sublime Porte as to the measures which have become necessary, and will without delay determine among themselves as to the employment of their military and naval forces. Their Lordships would observe that in the first Treaty any violation of the engagement entered into was to be made a question of "general interest," while in the second Treaty the violation of the guarantee was made a "casus belli." It would seem, therefore, that this country was bound to consider as a casus belli any violation of the integrity and independence of the Ottoman Empire recorded in the Treaty of Paris. There remained the further Question which he wished to put to his noble Friend, Did this guarantee of the integrity of Turkey include the Suzerainty of that country over the tributary States of Servia and Roumania? Was this country bound by Treaty to keep them in a state of vassalage, and had this Treaty any bearing upon the recent armaments in Besika Bay? It was impossible to suppose that this country would long look with indifference upon the struggles which had so often disturbed those countries—little known and little cared for—which lie to the eastward of the eastern shores of the Adriatic. One, Montenegro, had fought for and maintained its liberty and independence; another, like Herzegovina, was under the dominion of the Turks; another, like Servia, was in a state of vassalage to Turkey. It was a grave question, what was to be the future of these countries? Should their desire for independence be repressed by foreign interference? Should progress in civilization be checked? Should commerce be impeded by ports and harbours being kept in the hands of a foreign Power? He believed this country would watch the progress of events with the deepest interest, and, while earnestly desiring a peaceful issue, would look with sympathy for lasting and enduring results which had long been desired but never realized.

THE EARL OF DERBY

The best answer I can give to my noble Friend is to read the words of the Treaty, or at least of the material parts of the Treaty itself. The Treaty I refer to is that of the 15th of April, 1856, by which, in the First Article, Great Britain, Austria, and France— Guarantee jointly and severally the independence and integrity of the Ottoman Empire, in accordance with the Treaty concluded at Paris on the 30th of March, 1856. The Second Article of this Treaty of the 15th of April, 1856, recites that— Any infraction of the said Treaty will be considered by the Powers signing the present Treaty as casus belli. They will come to an understanding with the Sublime Porte as to the measures which have become necessary, and will, without delay, determine among themselves as to the employment of their military and naval forces. These are the words of the Treaty; and as far as I know that Treaty has not been invalidated or modified by any subsequent Treaty or any diplomatic document whatever. I do not understand that my noble Friend has asked me, and I do not think your Lordships will ask me, to do what would be hardly possible, and which if it were possible would be inconvenient and dangerous—namely, to enter on a purely hypothetical discussion as to the circumstances under which guarantees of that kind are to be held absolutely binding on the countries which have joined in them. No doubt they give us a right of interference, and no doubt, under certain circumstances, they might constitute on our part a duty to interfere; but what are the precise circumstances under which this right of interference ought to be exercised is a question which I think no one ought to be called upon to determine, and which no one can determine till the case actually arises. I am bound to point out that my noble Friend is under a misapprehension as to the drift and purport of the Second Article of the Treaty. There is no doubt that Roumania and Servia as States under the suzerainty of the Porte are included in that general guarantee of the integrity and the independence of the Ottoman Empire; but I submit that my noble Friend misapprehends the meaning of the Treaty when he asks whether it constitutes an engagement on our part or that of either of the other Powers who are parties to it to interfere in the internal affairs of the Ottoman Empire and interpose between the Turkish Government and States tributary to that Government. Evidently that was not contemplated by the Treaty, whatever may be its scope and meaning. The guarantee is one of the integrity and independence of the Turkish Empire against external aggression; but it never was contemplated, and, indeed, it would be quite impossible, that we should be bound to take part on the one side or the other in internal quarrels arising between the authorities at Constantinople and the populations within the limits of the Turkish Provinces or Dependencies.