INDEPENDENCE OF GREECE.
Nationalism in Europe -- Mediaeval Greece -- Greece and the Turks -- Phanariots -- Coräes -- Revolt of Greece -- England and Greece -- Nicholas I -- Protocol of St. Petersburg -- Treaty of 1827 -- Navarino -- Campaigns of Diebitsch -- Treaty of Adrianople -- Capodistrias and Leopold of Saxe-Coburg -- Treaty of. London, 1832 -- Bavarian Régime -- The Danish Dynasty -Treaty of London, 1863 -- Accessions of Territory -- The European War -- M. Venizelos -- Salonika --KingConstantine -- The Provisional Government.
Texts: The Treaty of London (1832) -- The Protocol of London ( 1830) -- The Treaty of London (1863).
FOR thirty-three years after the Congress of Vienna, the peace of Europe, though often threatened, was never seriously disturbed. This was partly due to the aversion from war left upon men's minds by the memory of the sanguinary period which had been ushered in by the French Revolution; partly also to the efforts of the Holy Alliance to maintain the peace of Europe by concerted action of the Powers. But the policy of the Holy Alliance could not be maintained against the growing sentiment of nationalism, which by the year 1820 was showing itself to be a potent force in Spain, Italy, and in Greece. It was in the latter country that nationalism attained one of its earliest and most remarkable developments in the nineteenth century.
Greece, since the great days of the fifth century before Christ, had passed through many vicissitudes. In turn, Romans, Byzantines, and crusading Franks had held it. Italians from Naples, Florence, and Venice had left their mark in Attica and the Morea. But by 1460 the whole of Greece had come under the Turks, whose dominion over it, except for eighteen years of Venetian government in the Morea ( 1699 to 1718), remained unbroken till the nineteenth century had run one-quarter of its course.
In the meantime, during the Middle Ages and the later centuries, the Greeks had not preserved the ancient purity of their race. The Slavs had come down south of the Balkans, and the Albanians had penetrated as far even as Attica. The Greek language had become degraded into patois, filled with alien words; the glorious classics of ancient Greece were forgotten in the land.
But in the hundred years before the War of Independence actually broke out, forces were at work which gradually wrought upon the modern Greeks the consciousness that they were the heirs of an ancient heritage, that they were a people fitted still to be free and independent.
This growth of a national sentiment was not the result of Turkish misgovernment. The Turks have indeed never been good administrators. Their financial and judicial systems in Greece were in certain directions oppressive owing to an arbitrary and corrupt element in them. Yet the Turks, like all arbitrary but ill-organized governments, left a considerable amount of freedom to their subjects, and the Greeks under their rule enjoyed a considerable share of prosperity. This prosperity was noticeable throughout the whole of the eighteenth century. 1 The peasantry either cultivated their own land, or held it as tenants, paying a fixed amount of the produce as rent. Their social and economic condition was good: 'in comparison with the Prussian serf, the Greek cultivator at the beginning of the eighteenth century was an independent man; in comparison with the English labourer, he was well fed and well housed.' 2 Their prosperous condition
1 See Finlay, History of Greece ( 146 B. C.-A. D. 1864), edition 1877, vol. v, ch. v.
2 Fyffe, Modern Europe, chap. iv, edition 1892, p. 238.
Kingdom of GREECE 1832-1913
made them receptive of other influences which tended to a spiritual awakening. There were, moreover, sufficient sources of irritation in the Turkish régime to make the Greeks look upon their conquerors as infidel oppressors.
The Greek Church had always kept alive a certain amount of national feeling. The lower clergy were men of the people, married, very little above the level of those whose spiritual needs they tended. They were superstitious and unlearned, but had not the less on this account the sympathy of their flock. The higher clergy, the bishops, belonged to the monastic side of the Church; they, too, had considerable influence over the people, through the bishops' courts, where the Turks permitted cases of both spiritual and secular interest to be brought. The services of the Church preserved something more of the classical Greek language than was contained in the vernacular of the country.
Under the Turkish régime there was almost an official aristocracy of Greeks -- wealthy families, dwelling in the quarter of Constantinople by the Phanar lighthouse. These 'Phanariot' Greeks regularly held important appointments in the Turkish administration, such as that side of it which dealt with foreign relations, with the drafting of treaties, and such matters. Moreover, since the end of the native tributary princes of Wallachia and of Moldavia between 1711 and 1716, the Phanariot Greeks had by purchase secured the 'farm' of the governorship of the Principalities. The Phanariots were well-educated and often able men, who did much by establishing schools to spread the feeling of Hellenism throughout their countrymen. In this work, at the end of the eighteenth century, they were much helped by wealthy Greeks who had established themselves in Odessa, a city which was founded by the Russian in 1790, and where Greek merchants established a great hold upon the corn-trade.
The one man who did more than any other to train and develop the comparatively small germ of national feeling which existed before his time among the Greeks was Adamantos Coräes, who devoted his long life to re-creating Greek literature and spreading the knowledge of the ancient Hellenic classics. This great scholar lived from the year 1748 to 1833, and from the year 1789 resided at Paris, an observer of the French Revolution and of the reverberations of that remarkable event in Western Europe. Spiritual things are more potent than material, and it is impossible to over-estimate the effect of the scholarship of Coräes. Expensive editions of Homer and Aristotle may not appear at first sight to be the best means of rousing an ignorant and half-Slavonic people to a sense of community with the free ancient Greeks whose language they did not understand. But Greek studies had never been really dead among the Phanariots at anytime in the eighteenth century. 1 Coräes had something to build upon, and gradually he not merely extended the knowledge of ancient Greek literature, with all the political ideals that it contained, but he also created a literary language for the modern Greeks, a vehicle for the transmission of knowledge, purer than the debased patois of the peasants, but not so archaic as to be unsuitable for the needs of modern men.
By the end of the Napoleonic Wars, Greece was ready to revolt. There was a large mercantile marine, manned by the hardy islanders of the Aegean, sailing largely under the Russian flag, monopolizing a great part of the commerce of the Black Sea and the Levant. The powerful secret society, the Hetaeria Philikë, founded by the wealthy enlightened Greeks of Odessa in 1814, did much to spread the seeds of revolt. In 1820 Alexander Ypsilanti, who belonged to a distinguished Phanariot family, and had risen to be a major-general in the service of the Tsar Alexander I, was elected president of the Hetaeria Philiké
1 See Rhangab, Histoire littéraire de la Gréce moderne ( Paris, 1877); Coräes, Autobiogyaphy (in Greek), Athens, 1891.
Next year, March 6, 1821, he crossed the Pruth with his following of Greek officers from the Russian service. The revolt was ill-timed and ill-conducted. Some temporary success was attained in the Principalities, but before June was out the Turks had driven him across the frontier into Austrian territory, where he was imprisoned for the next seven years, and then released to die in poverty. The revolt was thus suppressed in Wallachia and Moldavia, but it broke out simultaneously in the Morea and soon spread throughout all Greece. But it had no great success for some years yet. For when the Porte had succeeded in subduing their rebellious Pasha, Ali of Yanina, their forces were too much for the divided, ill-organized Greeks. Nor did the Powers of Europe give them any encouragement or support.
For five years war went on without any decisive result. The peasant-soldiers of the Greek mainland and the hardy islanders by sea proved themselves to be good fighters. Yet the war was not more creditable to the Greeks than to the Turks; it became a war of religion and of race, disgraced by terrible massacres on either side. The Greeks themselves could not agree, and at times there was open civil war among them.
The public opinion of Europe was in favour of the Greek national cause, but the Governments at first were against it. In 1821 Castlereagh still directed British foreign policy, and was anxious to maintain the existing state of affairs, fearful of another general conflagration such as Europe had passed through after the French Revolution. Metternich was still the guiding spirit of the Holy Alliance, and prevented Alexander I of Russia from giving support to the Greeks.
In 1822 Castlereagh died by his own hand, and was succeeded as Foreign Secretary by the liberal-minded Canning. British volunteers, such as the poet Byron, the soldier Church, the sailor Cochrane, who in their different ways gave most valuable help, joined themselves to the Greek cause. Yet the year 1825 closed with the Greek cause standing lower than ever, for Sultan Mahmud had called in the support of his independent Pasha, Mehemet Ali of Egypt, whose able son Ibrahim reconquered the Morea. The British Government had felt bound to prohibit its subjects from taking any part in the war. 1 But at the end of the year ( December 1, 1825) Tsar Alexander I of Russia died, giving place to his younger brother, the determined and energetic Nicholas I, who gradually and in the end decisively made his influence felt upon the destinies of Greece.
The Tsar Nicholas was no democrat, but as the head of Russia his interests lay in striking at Turkish power in Europe, and in helping the Orthodox Greek subjects of the Porte. Canning, unlike Nicholas, was both liberal-minded and the inheritor of a tradition, then just becoming firmly established, of friendship with Turkey and support of Turkey in Europe. Yet he had sympathy with national ideals and with Greek aspirations, and the public opinion of England was with him. He decided to approach Nicholas, and accordingly in 1826 sent the Duke of Wellington to Petrograd. The Duke, a strong Conservative, a firm upholder of constituted authority, had no liking for a mission in favour of the rebel Greeks. Yet when asked to go to Petrograd, his simple creed of duty admitted of no alternative. Once he made up his mind to carry out the mission, no man was better fitted for it. His character was naturally congenial to Nicholas, and it did not take them long to come to an understanding. On April 4, 1826, the Protocol of St. Petersburg was signed. 2
1 Proclamation with penalties attaching, September 30, 1825, in Hertslet, vol. i, No. 125. This was apparently merely the usual Proclamation of Neutrality issued under the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act (59 Geo. III, cap. 69). Its effect may probably have been to recognize the Greeks as belligerents.
2 Hertslet, vol. i, No. 129.
By this arrangement Great Britain and Russia agreed to offer their mediation to the Porte with a view to placing Greece in the position of a Dependency of Turkey. The Greeks ' should pay to the Porte an annual Tribute', and 'should be exclusively governed by authorities to be chosen and named by themselves, but in the nomination of which authorities the Porte should have a certain influence'. 1 If the Porte should reject the proffered mediation, Great Britain and Russia were still to consider this scheme as the basis of any settlement 'to be effected by their intervention, whether in concert or separately'. 2
Next year France gave its adhesion to the policy laid down in the Protocol of St. Petersburg. On July 6, 1827, 3 the three countries concluded a formal treaty embodying the provisions of that document. To this were added some important clauses. If the Turks refused the mediation the Allies would take steps to recognize Greek independence by appointing consular agents to Greece. If neither side would agree to an armistice, the Allies would take steps to prevent a collision between them, 'without, however, taking any part in the hostilities between the Two Contending Parties'.
The Treaty of London was Canning's last achievement. He had only become Prime Minister, in succession to the venerable Earl of Liverpool, in April. In August he himself died. Lord Goderich became Prime Minister. It was during this statesman's term of office that the momentous battle of Navarino occurred.
An armistice had been proposed to the belligerents; this the Greeks had, naturally, accepted readily, but the Turks had refused. Accordingly the Allied admirals in the Mediterranean, in accordance with their instructions, resolved to put pressure on the Porte. On October 20 the English, French, and Russian squadrons sailed into the
1 Hertslet, Article I.
2 Ibid., Article III.
3 Treaty of London : Hertlet, vol. i, No. 136
Bay of Navarino, the ancient Pylus, on the south-east coast of the Morea. The object of the admirals was to parley with the Turkish commander and to persuade him to an armistice. The Turkish chief, Ibrahim Pasha, was at the time away with his land forces, devastating the Morea. The colloquy with the Turks in Navarino Bay ended, as it was practically certain to do, with hostile acts on the part of the Turkish captains. The Allied fleet was in battle order, ready for such an emergency. A general conflict ensued, and by the end of the day the Egyptian fleet was destroyed.
This great battle saved Greece, for although the mainland was now overrun by the Turks, they could not touch the Islands, the real strongholds of the Greek cause. Yet its immediate results were disappointing. Admiral Codrington, who as senior officer was in command of the Allied fleet, wished to force the Dardanelles (then quite a feasible operation), and by appearing off Constantinople, to compel the Porte to accept the Treaty of London. But Canning's vigorous hand was no longer at the helm of the ship of Lord Goderich resigned. The Duke of Wellington became Prime Minister, resolved that he would intervene no further. The inaction of Britain, however, made very little difference to Greece now; it only meant that Russia would gain the laurels which Britain should have shared with her. On April 20, 1828, Tsar Nicholas began war upon Turkey. The campaign of this year was a failure, but in 1829 the soldierly qualities of Diebitsch quickly made themselves felt. The passage of the Balkans was forced, and on September 14 the Porte accepted terms of peace at Adrianople. 1 By Article X of this treaty Turkey agreed to adhere to the Treaty of London, 1827, in which Great Britain, Russia, and France defined their scheme for the settlement of Greece.
The independence of Greece was thus achieved. While
1 Hertslet, vol. i, No. 145.
the Russians had been fighting in Bulgaria, the Greeks in the Morea, aided by a French expedition sent in 1828, had reconquered that region. On February 3 1830, the three Powers, Great Britain, France, and Russia, by a protocol entered into at London, carried into effect the declared intention of their Treaty of 1827. The Porte, by Article X of the Treaty of Adrianople, had agreed to such a course of action on the part of the Powers. But the Protocol of 1830 1 secured to Greece far better terms than the Treaty of 1827 had outlined, for in the interval the Turks had been defeated by land and sea, had lost the whole of Greece south of the Gulf of Corinth and a considerable tract to the north of the Gulf, and had been faced with the prospect of seeing a Russian army before the walls of Constantinople. Their chance of keeping the Greeks tributary had therefore passed away. The Protocol of London, 1830, declared Greece to be a completely independent State. It was to be a monarchy, under a Sovereign Prince, who should not be a member of the reigning families of any of the Powers signatory of the Treaty of 1827. Since 1827 the President of the Greek Government had been the able and patriotic Capodistrias. On February 11, 1830, the crown was accepted by Leopold of Saxe-Coburg (subsequently King Leopold I of Belgium), but he never came to his adopted country, for he renounced it in May of the same year. Capodistrias therefore remained President, but was himself assassinated in October 1831. His death was followed by another troubled period in Greece, till on May 7, 1832, the three Powers made their final act, the well-known Treaty of London, which definitely secured Greek independence, on a substantial footing.
The preamble to this treaty refers to the desire which the Greek leaders had on various occasions expressed to the three Powers that they would intervene to effect a settlement between Greece and Turkey. The Turks,
1 Hertslet, vol. ii, No. 149.
naturally, had refused such mediation, as long as their arms were successful. But the battle of Navarino and the campaign of General Diebitsch had put an end to the Turks' chances of subduing Greece, and this they had definitely recognized when they concluded the Treaty of Adrianople. The Protocol of London, 1830 (p. 108 ), had made Greece independent under the guarantee of the three Powers, and is referred to in Articles IV and VI of the 1832 Treaty. The Treaty of 1827 had declared that Greece should be tributary to Turkey: the Turks refused this. The Protocol of 1830 had declared that Greece should be independent under a Sovereign Prince. Finally, the 1832 Treaty made Greece a kingdom.
By Article I the crown was offered to a prince of the ancient House of Wittelsbach, Frederick Otho, second son of King Ludwig I of Bavaria. Article IV placed the independence of Greece under the guarantee of Great Britain, France, and Russia; this guarantee is referred to and continued in the Treaty of London, July 13, 1863. 1 Article V leaves the Greek boundaries to be settled by negotiations which were then going on between the three Powers and Turkey. Article VIII contains the stipulation, usual in treaties regarding the establishment of a dynasty belonging to an already reigning house, that the two crowns are never to be united. Three other points of permanent interest appear in the treaty: by Article XII the three Powers engaged, the Emperor of Russia by his autocratic power, Great Britain and France with the consent of their legislative bodies, to guarantee the interest and sinking fund of a loan to be raised by Greece. Article XIII refers to a pecuniary indemnity to Turkey, for loss of territory owing to the establishment of Greek independence. Articles XIV and XV declared that a small body of troops and officers should be brought from Bavaria to Greece, to assist in its organization.
1 See pp. 123-125.
Under the conditions of Article XII Greece raised a loan of 60,000,000 francs; in 1857, owing to the failure of the Greek Government to meet the charges for interest and sinking fund, Great Britain, France, and Russia had to supply the necessary funds. In 1860 an arrangement was come to by which Greece should begin again to contribute towards the discharge of her obligations, by paying £12,000 per annum to each of the three Powers, who were discharging her loan. This arrangement is still in force, but, during the lifetime of King George, the three Powers, under the Treaty of March 29, 1864; annually gave back £4,000 each as an addition to the Civil List of the Greek Crown.
The indemnity referred to in Article XIII was fixed at 40,000,000 piastres, in the boundary treaty between Great Britain, France, and Russia on the one part, and Turkey on the other, concluded on July 21, 1832. This sum, equal to about £375,000, was not of course compensation to Turkey for the loss of Greece, but for losses due to individual landed proprietors.
The presence of Bavarian officers and councillors round King Otho gave an influence to his method of government which was not conducive to his popularity in Greece. In 1862 his Government was overthrown by a military revolt, and the king himself deposed by a National Assembly. In the Treaty of 1832, Great Britain, France, and Russia had not guaranteed King Otho and his dynasty, but only the independence of Greece. Accordingly, when the National Assembly elected Prince William of Schleswig-HolsteinSonderburg-Glücksburg (second son of Christian IX of Denmark) as king, Great Britain, France, and Russia agreed to this by another Treaty of London, July 13, 1863. The new king was to take the title of George I, King of the Greeks (Article II), but later in the same year it was altered to King of the Hellenes. 1 By Article III, Greece, under
1 This Treaty is in Hertslet, vol. ii, No. 347.
the sovereignty of Prince William of Denmark, and the guarantee of the three Courts, forms a monarchical, independent, and constitutional State.
The boundary of Greece as settled by the negotiations referred to in Article V of the Treaty of May 7, 1832, included only some 750,000 of the Hellenic race. The continental boundary ran from the Gulf of Volo to the Gulf of Arta, that is to say, from a point on the mainland north of the Island of Euboea, on the east of Greece, to a point just north of Acarnania on the west. 1 A previous convention had defined the insular possessions of Greece as the Island of Euboea or Negropont and the Cyclades. 2 All this was indeed but a very small part of the ancient Hellas. By the Treaty of London, 1863, when the three Powers recognized the succession of the Prince of Denmark, Great Britain also gave to Greece the Ionian Islands, 3 which had been a British protectorate since 1815. During the Crimean War, and again in the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-8, Greece had attempted to increase her continental boundaries at the expense of Turkey. The Congress of Berlin listened to Greek delegates, but Greece gained nothing by the Treaty of Berlin. Her affairs were now in the hands of all the six Great Powers of Europe, and through their influence Turkey was induced to give up Thessaly to Greece in 1881. 4 The French Minister of Foreign Affairs, Charles Waddington, greatly contributed to this result. The disastrous war of 1897 with Turkey left Greece with a worse position on the Thessalian frontier and completed her national bankruptcy, which happened the same year. In 1912-13,
1 Treaty between Great Britain, France, and Turkey (Constantinople), July 21, 1832. Hertslet, vol. ii, No. 161.
2 Ibid., No. 142. March 22, 1829.
3 See also Treaty between Great Britain, France, Russia, and Greece ( London), March 29, 1864. Hertslet, vol. iii, No. 357.
4 Treaty between the six Powers and Turkey (Constantinople), May 24, 1881. Hertslet, vol. iv, No. 584. By this rectification of her frontier Greece acquired something like 14,000 square miles of new territory.
however, Greece was more successful, and by the Treaties of London and Bucharest obtained a valuable part of Macedonia, including Salonika. She retained possession of important islands, taken by her navy in the First Balkan War (1912-3), and of Crete. To complete the limits of ancient Hellas, she would have to add certain other islands, and the coast-land of Asia Minor, the classic Ionia.
During the period when M. Venizelos was Premier, Greece made enormous progress in every direction. At the outbreak of war in August 1914, Greece and Turkey were themselves almost on the point of war over their contending interests. When Turkey threw in her lot with the Central Powers, it was M. Venizelos's hope that by aiding in the expulsion of the Ottoman Empire from Europe, he might be able to re-establish something like ancient Hellas, a nation in Greece, the Islands, and the western coast of Asia Minor. 1 He was, however, prevented from throwing Greece into the war by King Constantine, who, in the dark days of 1915, saw no reason to count on the ultimate triumph of the Entente Powers. He was, in fact, according to a telegram from himself to Berlin of July 25/Aug. 5, 1914, disclosed in the Diplomatica Engyapha 1913-1917
1 See Speech of M. Venizelos, August 27, 1916 (published by the Anglo-Hellenic League, 1916):
"??tì ?à ?pe?ta???µee ep+?ç t?`? Mp??+?? Asía? ?aì t?`? O?á??? ?aì t?`? K?+´p??? ??+´??teç te?e??t???+^ç tàé ?+?pe?????ete?+?é d?a°??áé µaé µè t??+` d?+´? ???????+´é µaé ??????+´é ?aì d?µ???????+teé E??aáda µe?á??? ?aì p+?s???à? ?aì p???sía? a+??ta?+03BF?????µ+00E9??? ep+?é tà p+???petéste?a ?????à ??e??a ß?ép?µe? t??é B????à???é ?à ep+?s?a?+´???? ep+?é t?`? E???????`? Ma?ed??ía? ?à ?ata?aµa?aµßá??U=03C5? ?aì t?`? pa????? ??+´?a? ?aì tàé pó?e?é ?aì tà °???+´??á µaé ?à ap+??µa??tí??? tà p+e?e+? tµ?`µata t?? 'E???????+? st?at?+? ???ìé ?à ep+???s??+´µe?a p?òé t?´+?é p+ep?d??µe+?é ?+´+?te eìé ?????µé??? ?+éte ep+?é p+a??`??et?? ?aì p+e??+^+? µ+aé pa?é???ta? p ap+?t?+^? p?é p+?µpa??µò? a?+? °?????´te?a? d?aßeßa??´se?ç." (Greek)
'Instead of expanding in Asia Minor, in Thrace, and in Cyprus; instead of settling the differences of more than a thousand years with our two national enemies, and calling into being a Hellas great and rich and powerful, corresponding to the highest flights of our national aspirations -- we see the Bulgarians Overrunning Greek Macedonia, occupying the open country and our towns and our fortresses, imprisoning the local detachments of the Greek Army, while we ourselves are not even in a state of either declared or undeclared war towards the invaders, who continue to mock us with the assurances of their friendship.'
(p. 48 ), upholding 'a neutrality which would be useful to Germany'.
At the beginning of October, 1915, General von Mackensen began his great campaign against Serbia. On October 7, Bulgaria joined the Central Powers and invaded Serbia. The Serbs called on Greece to fulfil her obligations under a defensive alliance which the two States had concluded after the Second Balkan War. 1
On September 25, 1915, M. Venizelos had asked the English and French ministers whether, in the event of Bulgaria making war upon Serbia, Great Britain and France would provide the 150,000 men which under the Serbo-Greek Treaty Serbia was bound to put in the field. Greece could provide her contingent, but Serbia, having already mobilized all her forces, could do no more. The British and French Governments at once agreed to undertake Serbia's obligations. This appears to be as far as matters went between the Allies and M. Venizelos up to the time of the landing of Allied troops at Salonika, which began on October 2. According to M. Venizelos's own account, which there is no reason to doubt, he was surprised by the landing, and had neither invited it nor consented to it. 2
The justification of the Allies' landing at Salonika does not lie, therefore, in any invitation of M. Venizelos, but in the rights which by treaty the Allies possessed. The documents on which those rights depended were the Protocol of February 3, 1830, the Treaty of May 7, 1832, and the Treaty of July 13, 1863. The Protocol stipulates, by Article VIII, that
No troops belonging to one of these Contracting Powers shall be allowed to enter the territory of the New Greek State without the consent of the two other Courts
1 The treaty was made on May 19-June 1, 1913. It was published as a White Book by the Venizelos Government on August 18, 1917. See Diplomatika Engrapha, 1913-17, pp. 6-21.
2 See article in The New Europe, November 9, 1916, by R. M. Burrows , 'Absolutism in Greece and our Treaty Rights'.
who signed the Treaty [i. e. the Treaty of July 6, 1827, see p. 106].
This protocol was agreed to by the Porte and by the Greek Government, and the guarantee of 1832 was by treaty declared to depend upon its terms.
Greece under the sovereignty of Prince Otho of Bavaria and under the guarantee of the three Courts, shall form a monarchical and independent State, according to the terms of the Protocol signed between the said courts, on the 3rd February 1830, and accepted both by Greece and by the Ottoman Porte.
By these Acts, Great Britain, France, and Russia guaranteed the independence of Greece, but bound themselves only to land troops to maintain that guarantee with the assent of the guaranteeing Powers. The guarantee could be put into effect only if Greece was ceasing to be monarchical and independent. In 1863, however, this new treaty of guarantee inserted a fresh condition:
Greece under the sovereignty of Prince William of Denmark and the guarantee of the three Courts, forms a monarchical, independent, and constitutional State.
The guarantee was thenceforth to become operative if Greece was in danger of losing her independence or her monarchical or constitutional government. The Allies could therefore claim in the autumn of 1915 that although Greece was remaining monarchical, its independence was in danger, owing to action of the Central Powers, and that it was ceasing to be constitutional, and was becoming absolutist. 1 For King Constantine dismissed M. Venizelos,
1 Dr. Burrows (loc. cit.) points out that the British Foreign Office in the Parl. Paper recording 'Treaties containing guarantees or engagements by Great Britain in regard to the territory or government of other countries' (Cd. 9088, July 1898), quotes the Protocol of 1830, but omits the clause respecting armed intervention. He suggests that this omission may account for the fact that the British Government, after the landing at Salonika in October 1915, gave the 'invitation' of M. Venizelos as justification. This is unfortunate, as M. Venizelos did not intend to convey an invitation, while the treaty rights of the Allies amply justify the intervention.
and had a new Cabinet formed. The Chamber was Venizelist, but the King dissolved it, and proceeded to have a General Election, while the army, which had been mobilized on September 23, was still under arms. The Venizelists consequently abstained from taking part, and the non-interventionists gained a majority in the Chamber. The appeal of Serbia was disregarded, on the ground that the defensive treaty had been made to safeguard her from Bulgaria only, not from a general combination such as the European war involved. The real reason probably lies in the speed with which Marshal von Mackensen was overrunning Serbia. King Constantine's view of his responsibilities prevented him from going to the assistance of a defeated and practically powerless ally. The Diplomatika Engrapha (under date of May 9, 1916) shows that the Skouloudes Government were aware of the intention of the Germano-Bulgarians to seize Rupel.
In the summer of 1916, under pressure from the Allies, King Constantine agreed that the Greek Army should be demobilized, and that a General Election should be held among the whole people, in order to ascertain the views of the country, according to the terms of the Constitution. Before the election took place, the occupation of the Greek towns of Kavalla and Florina by the Bulgarians had made it necessary for the Allies to formulate their demands more clearly to the Greek Government. Accordingly on September 2, 1916, they presented a Note, demanding that all German and Austrian political agents should be made to leave Greek territory, and that the wireless stations, posts, and telegraphs, through which the Central Powers had been receiving information, should be given over to the control of the Allies. In these demands the Greek Government acquiesced. The reply of the German authorities to this move was to deport a Greek Army Corps, which had remained at Kavalla (September 15). A fortnight earlier the Revolution had been started at Salonika, and a Provisional Government of Venizelists established, in favour of the Allies.
On June, 12, 1917, King Constantine 'conforming to a demand presented by M. Jonnart, as representing the Protecting Powers of Greece', abdicated the Greek throne in favour of his second son, Alexander. 1 The Provisional Government became merged in the National Government.
CONVENTION BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE, AND RUSSIA, ON THE ONE PART, AND BAVARIA ON THE OTHER,
RELATIVE TO THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GREECE.
SIGNED AT LONDON, 7TH MAY, 1832. 2
ARTICLE I. The Courts of Great Britain, France, and Russia, duly authorised for this purpose by the Greek nation, offer the hereditary Sovereignty of Greece to the Prince Frederick Otho of Bavaria, second son of His Majesty the King of Bavaria.
ARTICLE II. His Majesty the King of Bavaria, acting in the name of his said son, a minor, accepts, on his behalf, the hereditary Sovereignty of Greece, on the conditions hereinafter settled.
ARTICLE III. The Prince Otho of Bavaria shall bear the title of King of Greece.
ARTICLE IV. Greece, under the Sovereignty of the Prince Otho of Bavaria, and under the Guarantee of the 3 Courts, shall form a monarchical and independent State, according to the terms of the Protocol signed between the said Courts on the 3rd February, 1830, and accepted both by Greece and by the Ottoman Porte.
ARTICLE V. The limits of the Greek State shall be such as shall be definitively settled by the negotiations which the Courts of Great Britain, France, and Russia have recently opened with the Ottoman Porte, in execution of the Protocol of 26th of September, 1831.
ARTICLE VI. The 3 Courts having beforehand determined to convert the Protocol of the 3rd of February, 1830 into a Definitive Treaty, as soon as the negotiations relative to the limits of Greece shall have terminated, and to com-
1 The Times newspaper, June 14, 1917.
2 State Papers, vol. xix, p. 33; Hertslet, vol. ii, No. 159.
municate such Treaty to all the States with which they have relations, it is hereby agreed that they shall fulfil this engagement, and that His Majesty the King of Greece shall become a Contracting Party to the Treaty in question.
ARTICLE VII. The 3 Courts shall, from the present moment, use their influence to procure the recognition of the Prince Otho of Bavaria as King of Greece, by all the Sovereigns and States with whom they have relations.
ARTICLE VIII. The Royal Crown and dignity shall be hereditary in Greece; and shall pass to the direct and lawful descendants and heirs of the Prince Otho of Bavaria, in the order of primogeniture. In the event of the decease of the Prince Otho of Bavaria, without direct and lawful issue, the Crown of Greece shall pass to his younger brother, and to his direct and lawful descendants and heirs, in the order of primogeniture. In the event of the decease of the last-mentioned Prince also, without direct and lawful issue, the Crown of Greece shall pass to his younger brother, and to his direct and lawful descendants and heirs, in the order of primogeniture.
In no case shall the Crown of Greece and the Crown of Bavaria be united upon the same head.
ARTICLE IX. The majority of the Prince Otho of Bavaria, as King of Greece, is fixed at the period when he shall have completed his 20th year, that is to say, on the 1st of June, 1835.
ARTICLE X. During the minority of the Prince Otho of Bavaria, King of Greece, his rights of Sovereignty shall be exercised in their full extent, by a Regency composed of 3 Councillors, who shall be appointed by His Majesty the King of Bavaria.
ARTICLE XI. The Prince Otho of Bavaria shall retain the full possession of his appanages in Bavaria. His Majesty the King of Bavaria, moreover, engages to assist, as far as may be in his power, the Prince Otho in his position in Greece, until a revenue shall have been set apart for the Crown in that State.
ARTICLE XII. In execution of the Stipulations of the Protocol of the 20th of February, 1830, His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias engages to guarantee, and their Majesties the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the King of the French, engage to recommend, the former to his Parliament, and the latter to his Chambers, to enable their Majesties to guarantee, on the following conditions, a Loan to be contracted by the Prince Otho of Bavaria, as King of Greece.
1. 1. The principal of the Loan to be contracted under the guarantee of the 3 Powers, shall not exceed a total amount of 60,000,000 of francs.
2. 2. The said Loan shall be raised by instalments of 20,000,000 of francs each.
3. 3. For the present, the first instalment only shall be raised, and the 3 Courts shall each become responsible for the payment of one-third of the annual amount of the interest and sinking fund of the said instalment.
4. 4. The second and the third instalments of the said Loan may also be raised, according to the necessities of the Greek State, after previous agreement between the Courts and His Majesty the King of Greece.
5. 5. In the event of the second and third instalments of the above-mentioned Loan being raised in consequence of such an agreement, the 3 Courts shall each become responsible for the payment of one-third of the annual amount of the interest and sinking fund of these two instalments, as well as of the first.
6. 6. The Sovereign of Greece and the Greek State shall be bound to appropriate to the payment of the interest and sinking fund, of such instalments of the Loan as may have been raised under the guarantee of the 3 Courts, the first revenues of the State, in such manner that the actual receipts of the Greek Treasury shall be devoted, first of all, to the payment of the said interest and sinking fund, and shall not be employed for any other purpose until those payments on account of the instalments of the Loan raised under the guarantee of the 3 Courts shall have been completely secured for the current year.
The diplomatic Representatives of the 3 Courts in Greece shall be specially charged to watch over the fulfilment of the last-mentioned stipulation.
ARTICLE XIII. In case a pecuniary compensation in favour of the Ottoman Porte should result from the negotiations which the 3 Courts have already opened at Constantinople for the definitive settlement of the limits of Greece, it is understood that the amount of such compensation shall be defrayed out of the proceeds of the Loan which forms the subject of the preceding Article.
ARTICLE XIV. His Majesty the King of Bavaria shall lend his assistance to the Prince Otho in raising in Bavaria a body of troops, not exceeding 3,500 men, to be employed in his service, as King of Greece, which corps shall be armed, equipped, and paid by the Greek State, and be sent thither as soon as possible, in order to relieve the troops of the Alliance hitherto stationed in Greece. The latter shall remain in that country entirely at the disposal of the Government of His Majesty the King of Greece, until the arrival of the body of troops above mentioned. Immediately upon their arrival the troops of the Alliance already referred to shall retire, and altogether evacuate the Greek territory.ARTICLE XV. His Majesty the King of Bavaria shall also assist the Prince Otho in obtaining the services of a certain number of Bavarian officers, who shall organize a national military force in Greece.ARTICLE XVI. As soon as possible after the signature of the present Convention, the 3 Councillors who are to be associated with His Royal Highness the Prince Otho by His Majesty the King of Bavaria, in order to compose the Regency of Greece, shall repair to Greece, shall enter upon the exercise of the functions of the said Regency, and shall prepare all the measures necessary for the reception of the Sovereign, who, on his part, will repair to Greece with as little delay as possible.ARTICLE XVII. The 3 Courts shall announce to the Greek nation, by a joint declaration, the choice which they have made of His Royal Highness Prince Otho of Bavaria, as King of Greece, and shall afford the Regency all the support in their power.ARTICLE XVIII. The present Convention shall be ratified, and the Ratifications shall be exchanged at London in 6 weeks, or sooner if possible.In witness whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed the same, and have affixed thereto the Seal of their Arms.
Done at London, the 7th May, in the year of Our Lord, 1832.
(L.S.) A. DE COTTO.
PROTOCOL OF CONFERENCE BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE, AND RUSSIA,
RELATIVE TO THE INDEPENDENCE OF GREECE.
LONDON, 3RD OF FEBRUARY, 1830. 1
PRESENT: The Plenipotentiaries of Great Britain, France, and Russia.
. . . The members of the Conference, finding that the Ottoman declarations place them in a situation to concert the measures which may appear to them most desirable in the actual state of things; and being desirous of introducing into the former arrangements of the Alliance whatever improvements might be best adapted to assure new pledges of stability to the work of peace on which it is employed, decided, by common agreement, upon the following Articles: --
§ 1. Greece shall form an independent State, and shall enjoy all the rights, political, administrative, and commercial, attached to complete independence.
§ 2. In consideration of these advantages granted to the new State, and in deference to the desire expressed by the Porte to obtain the reduction of the frontiers fixed by the Protocol of the 22nd of March, the line of demarcation of the limits of Greece shall take its departure from the mouth of the River Aspropotamos, ascend that river as far as the latitude of Lake Angelo Castro, and traversing that lake, as well as those of Vrachori and Saurovitza, it shall strike the Mount Artolina, from whence it shall follow the ridge of Mount Oxas, the Valley of Calouri, and the ridge of Mount (Eta, as far as the Gulf of Zeitoun, which it shall reach at the mouth of the Sperchius.
All the territories and countries situated to the south of this line, which the Conference has marked upon the map hereunto annexed -- Lit. F., shall belong to Greece; and all the countries and territories situated to the north of this line shall continue to form part of the Ottoman Empire.
There shall likewise belong to Greece the whole of the Island of Negropont, with the Devil's Islands and the Island of Skyros, and the islands anciently known by the name of Cyclades, including the Island of Amorgo, situated between the 36th and 39th degrees of north latitude,
1 State Papers, vol. xvii, p. 191. In French. English version as presented to Parliament in T. E. Holland, The European Concert in the Eastern Question ( 1885), pp. 28-32.
and the 26th degree of longitude east of the meridian of Greenwich.
§ 3. The Greek Government shall be monarchical, and hereditary according to the order of primogeniture. It shall be confided to a Prince, who shall not be capable of being chosen from among those of the families reigning in the States that signed the Treaty of the 6th July, 1827, and shall bear the title of Sovereign Prince of Greece. The choice of that Prince shall form the object of subsequent communications and stipulations.
§ 4. So soon as the Articles of the present Protocol shall have been conveyed to the knowledge of the parties interested, peace shall be considered as established ipso facto between the Ottoman Empire and Greece; and the subjects of the two States shall be reciprocally treated, in regard to the rights of commerce and navigation, as those of other States at peace with the Ottoman Empire and Greece.
§ 5. Acts of full and entire amnesty shall be immediately published by the Ottoman Porte and by the Greek Government.
The Act of amnesty of the Porte shall proclaim, that no Greek in the whole extent of its dominions shall be liable to be deprived of his property, or in any way disturbed, in consequence of the part which he may have taken in the insurrection of Greece.
The Act of amnesty of the Greek Government shall proclaim the same principle in favour of all the Mussulmans or Christians who may have taken part against its cause; and it shall further be understood and promulgated, that the Mussulmans who may be desirous of continuing to inhabit the territories and islands allotted to Greece, shall preserve their properties therein, and invariably enjoy there, with their families, perfect security.
§ 6. The Ottoman Porte shall grant to those of its Greek subjects who may be desirous of quitting the Turkish territory, a delay of a year, in order to sell their properties and to depart freely from the country.
The Greek Government shall allow the same power to the inhabitants of Greece who may wish to transport themselves to the Turkish territory.
§ 7. All the military and naval forces of Greece shall evacuate the territories, fortresses, and islands which they occupy beyond the line assigned in the second section for the limits of Greece, and shall withdraw behind that line with the least possible delay.
All the Turkish military and naval forces which occupy territories, fortresses, or islands comprised within the limits above mentioned, shall evacuate those islands, fortresses, and territories; and shall, in like manner, retire behind the same limits with the least possible delay.
§ 8. Each of the three Courts shall retain the power, secured to it by the 6th Article of the Treaty of the 6th of July, 1827, of guaranteeing the whole of the foregoing arrangements and Articles. The Act of guarantee, if there be any, shall be drawn up separately; the operation and effects of these different Acts shall become, in conformity with the above-mentioned Article, the object of further stipulations on the part of the High Powers. No troops belonging to one of the Contracting Powers shall be allowed to enter the territory of the new Greek State, without the consent of the two other Courts who signed the Treaty.
§ 9. In order to avoid the collisions, which could not fail to result, under existing circumstances, from bringing Ottoman boundary Commissioners and Greek boundary Commissioners into contact, when the line of the frontiers of Greece comes to be laid down on the spot, it is agreed that that task shall be entrusted to British, French, and Russian Commissioners, and that each of the three Courts shall nominate one. These Commissioners, furnished with the instruction hereunto annexed, -- Lit. G., shall settle the line of the said frontiers, following, with all possible exactness, the line pointed out in the second section; they shall mark out that line with stakes, and shall draw up two maps thereof, to be signed by them, of which one shall be given to the Ottoman Government, and the other to the Greek Government. They shall be bound to finish their labours in the space of six months. In case of difference of opinion between the three Commissioners, the majority of voices shall decide.
§ 10. The arrangements of the present Protocol shall be immediately communicated to the Ottoman Government by the Plenipotentiaries of the three Courts, who shall be furnished for this purpose with the common instruction hereunto annexed, -- Lit. H.
The Residents of the three Courts in Greece shall also receive, on the same subject, the instruction hereunto annexed -- Lit. I.
§ 11. The three Courts reserve to themselves to embody the present stipulations in a formal Treaty, which shall be signed at London, be considered as executive of that of the 6th of July, 1827, and be communicated to the other Courts of Europe, with the invitation to accede thereto, should they judge it expedient.
Having thus arrived at the close of a long and difficult negotiation, the three Courts sincerely congratulate themselves on having come to a perfect agreement, in the midst of the most serious and delicate circumstances.
The maintenance of their union during such periods, offers the best pledge of its permanency; and the three Courts flatter themselves that this union, as firm as it is beneficial, will not cease to contribute to the confirmation of the peace of the world.
(Signed) ABERDEEN. MONTMORENCY-LAVAL. LIEVEN.
TREATY BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE, AND RUSSIA, ON THE ONE PART,
AND DENMARK, ON THE OTHER PART,
RELATIVE TO THE ACCESSION OF PRINCE WILLIAM OF DENMARK TO THE THRONE OF GREECE.
SIGNED AT LONDON, 13TH JULY, 1863. 1
ARTICLE I. His Majesty the King of Denmark, in accordance with the Prince Christian of Denmark, acting in the character of guardian of his second son the Prince Christian William Ferdinand Adolphus George, accepts for that Prince, a minor, the hereditary Sovereignty of Greece, which is offered to him by the Senate and the National Assembly of Greece in the name of the Hellenic Nation.
ARTICLE II. The Prince William of Denmark shall bear the title of George I, King of the Greeks (Roi des Grecs), 2
ARTICLE III. Greece, under the Sovereignty of Prince
1 State Papers, vol. liii, p. 28. 2 The title of the Greek sovereign was subsequently changed to King of the Hellenes (Protocols of August 3 and October 13, 1863; see Hertslet, vol. ii, p. 1546, note).
William of Denmark, and the Guarantee of the 3 Courts, forms a Monarchical, Independent, and Constitutional State.
ARTICLE IV. The Limits of the Greek Territory, determined by the arrangement concluded at Constantinople between the 3 Courts and the Ottoman Porte, on the 21st July, 1832, shall receive an extension by the Union of the Ionian Islands with the Hellenic Kingdom, when such Union, proposed by the Government of Her Britannic, Majesty, shall have been found to be in accordance with the wishes of the Ionian Parliament, and shall have obtained the assent of the Courts of Austria, France, Prussia, and Russia.
ARTICLE V. The Ionian Islands, when their Union with the Kingdom of Greece shall have been effected, shall be comprised in the Guarantee stipulated by Article III of the present Treaty.
ARTICLE VI. In no case shall the Crown of Greece and the Crown of Denmark be united on the same head.
ARTICLE VII. In conformity with the principle of the Hellenic Constitution recognised by the Treaty signed at London, on the 20th November, 1852, and proclaimed by the Decree of the National Assembly of Greece, of the 3oth March, 1863, the legitimate successors of King George I must profess the tenets of the Orthodox Church of the East.
ARTICLE VIII. The Majority of Prince William of Denmark, fixed by the law of the Royal Family at 18 years complete, that is to say, on the 24th December, 1863, shall be considered as attained before that date, if a Decree of the National Assembly should recognise the necessity thereof.
ARTICLE IX. At the moment when the Union of the Ionian Islands with the Hellenic Kingdom shall take place, according to the terms of Article IV of the present Treaty, Her Britannic Majesty will recommend to the Government of the United States of the Ionian Islands to appropriate annually a sum of 10,000 sterling to augment the Civil List of His Majesty George I, King of the Greeks (Roi des Grecs).
Each of the 3 Courts will give up in favour of Prince William of Denmark £4,000 a year out of the sums which the Greek Treasury has engaged to pay annually to each of them, in pursuance of the arrangement concluded at Athens by the Greek Government, with the concurrence of the Chambers, in the month of June, 1860.It is expressly understood that these three sums, forming a total of £12,000 sterling annually, shall be destined to constitute a personal Dotation of His Majesty the King, in addition to the Civil List fixed by the Law of the State.ARTICLE XI. The Accession of Prince William to the Hellenic Throne shall not involve any change in the Financial Engagements which Greece has contracted by Article XII of the Convention signed at London, on the 7th May, 1832, towards the Powers Guarantors of the Loan.It is equally understood that the Powers will, in concert, watch over the execution of the engagement taken by the Hellenic Government in the month of June, 1860, upon the representation of the 3 Courts.ARTICLE XII. The 3 Courts shall, from this moment, use their influence in order to procure the recognition of Prince William of Denmark in the character of King of the Greeks (Roi des Grecs), by all the Sovereigns and States with whom they have relations.ARTICLE XIII. His Majesty the King of Denmark reserves to himself to take the measures which may be most proper for facilitating the arrival of King George I in his dominions as soon as possible.ARTICLE XIV. The 3 Courts will bring the present Treaty to the knowledge of the Greek Government, and will afford to that Government all the support in their power, while awaiting the speedy arrival of His Majesty the King.ARTICLE XV. The present Treaty shall be ratified, and the Ratifications shall be exchanged at London in 6 weeks, or sooner, if possible.In witness whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed the same, and have affixed thereto the Seal of their Arms.
Done at London, the 13th day of July, in the year of Our Lord, 1863.
(L.S.) BON. GROS.
(L.S.) BILLE. CHAPTER IV
THE KINGDOM OF BELGIUM
The Burgundian Inheritance -- House of Burgundy -- Partition of the Inheritance -- The United Netherlands -- The Spanish (Austrian) Netherlands -- The Netherlands and the French Revolution -- First Peace of Paris -- Vienna Congress Act -Kingdom of Holland and Belgium -- The July Revolution -Belgian Revolution -- Leopold of Saxe-Coburg -- Protocol of twenty-four articles -- Treaty of 1831 -- Division of territory -The Scheldt -- The Treaty of 1839 -- The Franco-Prussian War -- The Imperial Chancellor, August 1914 -- Attitude of Belgian Government towards the Guarantors -- Conversations of 1906 -The Invasion of August 2, 1914 -- German offers to Belgium -Bona fides of Belgium.
Texts : The Treaty of London (1839) -- The Conversations of 1906.
THE Kingdom of Belgium is part of the famous Burgundian inheritance which has exercised such a fatal influence throughout the history of Modern Europe. Its origins go back to the ancient Kingdom of Lorraine, which was created by the Division of Verdun in 843, when the Empire of Western Europe, which the mighty Charlemagne had made, was split up into three parts. The central portion, Lotharingia or Lorraine, was made into a 'middle kingdom ', stretching in one long strip from the south of Italy to the mouths of the Rhine, bound together by chains of mountains -- the Apennines, the Jura, and the Vosges.
As the Middle Ages went on, the process of partition was carried further and further. The ancient Lotharingia became completely feudalized, and by the end of the fourteenth century the northern portion of it, the valley of the Meuse and lower Rhine, consisted of at least seventeen practically independent feudal states, fiefs of the Holy Roman Empire or of the Crown of France. Within the next half-century nearly all these fiefs, that is all the Low Countries or Netherlands, had by one means or another come under the dominion of the House of Burgundy.
The House of Burgundy was a cadet branch of the French Royal House of Valois. The Duchy of Burgundy, one of the great fiefs of the Kingdom of France, was granted by John II of France in 1363 to his third son, Philip. Philip's line lasted till 1477, when it ended in the person of the Duchess Mary. In that interval, by marriage, by purchase, by force, the Dukes of Burgundy acquired one after another of the seventeen counties and lordships of the Netherlands. Throughout a great part of that time, the Burgundian power had been in close alliance with England: DukePhilip the Good. had been an ally of Henry V in the Hundred Years' War; Charles the Bold was an ally of Edward IV, and married Edward's sister Margaret. When Charles was killed before the town of Nancy in Lorraine in 1477, he left a daughter Mary (the issue of his first wife, Isabella of Bourbon) as the inheritor of all his dominions. But this fortuitous aggregation of disparate fiefs could not be held together by the hands of one weak woman. Europe has ever since been troubled by quarrels over this inheritance. 'Here,' said Louis XV of France, when visiting the tomb of the Duchess Mary at Bruges, 'here is the origin of all our wars.'
On the death of Charles the Bold in 1477, Louis XI of France was able to make himself master of Ducal Burgundy, but the Duchess Mary transferred the rest of her dominions to the House of Habsburg, by marrying Maximilian of Austria. The Netherlands (comprehending all the modern Holland and Belgium) remained together under the Habsburgs for a hundred years. In 1556 the Emperor Charles V divided all his dominions between his brother Ferdinand and his son Philip, who respectively founded the Austrian and Spanish branches of the House of Habsburg. The Netherlands were included in the dominions of the Spanish branch under Philip. The policy of this monarch gave rise to the great revolt of the Netherlands, so graphically described by the American historian Motley. But only the seven northern provinces of the Netherlands were successful in shaking off the rule of Spain. In 1579, by the Union of Utrecht, they founded the Republic of the United Netherlands, which is now the Kingdom of Holland. The ten southern provinces, which were roughly equivalent to the modern Belgium, remained under the Spanish House, and became known ultimately as the Spanish Netherlands.
Throughout the seventeenth century the southern provinces were under Spanish rule, but in 1713 (Peace of Utrecht), as the result of the War of the Spanish Succession, they were transferred to the Austrian Habsburgs, and became known as the Austrian Netherlands. Under Austrian rule they made considerable progress in material prosperity, and undoubtedly benefited from the HabsburgBourbon alliance after 1756, which prevented them from being exposed to armies from France. The French Revolution, however, shook old Europe to its foundations, and exposed the Austrian Netherlands to new vicissitudes. In 1792 they were overrun by the armies of the French Republic. In 1797 they were annexed to France, and till 1814 remained under that power. On the fall of Napoleon they were for a brief period restored to Austria, and finally, in 1815, by the Treaty of Vienna they were joined once more, after an interval of 235 years, to the northern Netherlands.
The United Provinces (modern Holland), since their separation from the Southern Provinces (modern Belgium) in 1579, had remained free and independent till 1795. Their Constitution was that of a republican federation, with a quasi-monarchical element in the family of OrangeNassau. The chief member for the time being of this interesting House during the 215 years of the republic's existence, was for such long periods in the position of stadtholder or governor of several or all of the Provinces, that the family had, in a strictly limited sense, however, something of the position of a reigning dynasty. In 1795 the United Provinces were conquered by revolutionary France, and were reorganized on the French model as the Batavian Republic. In this, naturally, the House of Orange had no part. In 1806 Napoleon converted Holland (the name under which the old United Provinces were henceforth to be known) into a kingdom, dependent upon the French Empire, under his brother Louis. Louis's rule, though in the interests of his Dutch subjects, was not acceptable to his brother the Emperor. Therefore in 1810 Holland was incorporated in the Napoleonic Empire, and made subject to the trade restrictions, the conscription, and the financial burdens incidental to the Napoleonic régime. When the Battle of Leipsic in 1813 brought victory to the Allies, and shook the Napoleonic Empire, the Dutch seized the opportunity to revolt, and set up their independent State again, this time as a monarchy, with the chief of the House of Orange as sovereign prince. The independent Netherlands, thus re-established, was recognized by Article VI of the First Peace of Paris, May 30, 1814: ' Holland, placed under the Sovereignty of the House of Orange, shall receive an increase of territory.' This increase of territory was defined in No. IV of the secret articles of the Peace of Paris as 'the Countries comprised between the Sea, the Frontiers of France, such as they are defined by the present Treaty, and the Meuse'. 1 This arrangement was put into effect by the General Act of the Congress of Vienna, June 9, 1815. By Article LXV 'the late Belgic provinces', which it must be remembered had never as a group had any national independence, were joined to 'the ancient United Provinces of the Nether-
1 First Peace of Paris, May 30, 1814, Hertslet, vol. i, No. 1.
lands ', and the whole was erected into a kingdom under the Prince of Orange-Nassau, who took the title of King William I.
The union of Holland and Belgium was the result of a statesmanlike attempt on the part of the Congress of Vienna to deal with a difficult problem. The Low Countries, situated between France and the Germanic States, and possessing harbours on the Channel and North Sea, had on many occasions been the battle-ground of the great States of Europe. The Belgic provinces, in particular, under whatever master they happened to be, had never been able to preserve their neutrality, but had been used by one belligerent State or another in their military designs. During the War of the Austrian Succession, Belgium was for two years ( 1747-8) conquered and actually governed by France. The same thing had happened again between 1792 and 1814. The United Provinces had been more successful in protecting themselves, for their people were independent in spirit, and were wealthy and statesmanlike. The two groups, the United and Belgic Provinces, if joined firmly together, might have formed a very substantial State, able to defend itself, and to prevent its great neighbours from using it for their military designs. If Holland and Belgium with use and wont had gradually grown together into one State and people, the international condition of Europe in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries would have been simplified. The Dutch and Belgians were both comfortable, peace-loving peoples, with a high standard of civilization. Being neither able nor disposed to carry on aggressive designs, all their interests were in peace, which they might have been strong enough to maintain for themselves.
But the obscure forces which produce and develop that feeling which we call national were too strong. The Dutch felt themselves to be one nation, the Belgians another. History, language, religion, and, to a certain extent, race,
The Frontiers of Belgium
all accentuated the difference between them. Between 1814 and 1830 these differences grew steadily more acute, and were increased by the fact that throughout that time men of Dutch birth played a far larger part in the management of the State than did Belgians. The majority of civil servants and military officers were Dutch. When in 1830 a revolution took place in France, it acted as an inspiration to the Belgians, who forthwith proclaimed a provisional government for themselves.
The Revolution of July 1830 in France was not a tremendous crisis like that of 1789, yet its effects were felt throughout Europe. The old Bourbon dynasty had been restored to France in 1814, but never became really popular again. Charles X, who succeeded Louis XVIII in 1824, did nothing to improve the position. His administration was under clerical influence, and he had little sympathy with parliamentary government. In July 1830, under the advice of his chief minister the Duc de Polignac, Charles X, by the famous 'Ordinances', suspended practically the whole Constitution which had been conferred by Louis XVIII's 'Charter'. The result was revolution in the middle classes of Paris, and by the end of the month Charles X was a fugitive in England. Prince Louis Philippe, chief of the Orleans branch of the Royal House, was elected king in his stead.
The Revolution in France was followed next month by another in Belgium. The two revolutions were not unconnected. Belgium had been practically part of France from 1795 to 1814. Its civilization was French, the French language was widely spread there. Between the two countries there was much community of interest, and the revolutionary party in France had sympathizers and active friends in Belgium. Everything therefore conduced to bring about a revolt when the news of the Revolution of July reached Brussels.
The rising actually broke out in Brussels on August 25.
The other large towns joined the movement, and within about one month only Antwerp remained in Dutch hands. A national congress met at Brussels, and on November 10 proclaimed the independence of Belgium under 'a constitutional and representative monarchy'. The Dutch reigning House of Orange-Nassau was declared to be perpetually excluded from the Belgian throne. In the meantime representatives of Great Britain, France, Austria, Prussia, and Russia had met in conference at London ( November 4, 1830). Anxious to have the revolutionary movement settled, the Powers recognized the independence of Belgium under a Provisional Government (December). This was changed into a monarchy, when in April of next year ( 1831) the crown of Belgium was accepted by Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg. Prince Leopold, who appears in the well-known correspondence of Queen Victoria as her faithful friend and adviser, had been elected King of Greece in the previous year, but had renounced that precarious throne. Under him Belgium became the most successful of all the experiments in State-making which the Powers had undertaken.
It was years, however, before Holland would recognize the secession and independence of Belgium. Only the entry of a French army into Belgium put a stop to the war between the two countries. At the same time the Powers, finding Holland still unwilling to agree, took the matter under their own control. The Conference at London, on October 24, drew up the well-known Protocol of 24 Articles, which was embodied on November 15 in the famous Treaty of 1831 between Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia, Russia, and the Kingdom of Belgium.
The division of territory between the two countries presented a great difficulty. The Kingdom of Holland represented the old seven United Provinces. The Kingdom of Belgium had grown out of the old 'Austrian Netherlands'. The district of Limburg historically belonged to both; the northern portion, with Maestricht, had been Dutch in the eighteenth century; the southern portion, with the city of Limburg itself, was in the Austrian Netherlands. Luxemburg, on the other hand, had been wholly within the Austrian Netherlands. In 1815, however, the Congress of Vienna had made it into a Grand Duchy under the King of the Netherlands. The Dutch, therefore, had an excellent claim to it. It had, however, thrown in its lot with the Belgian Revolution in 1830. The Treaty of 1831 effected a compromise: the western portion was given to Belgium the eastern portion, with the city of Luxemburg itself, remained a Grand Duchy under the King of the Netherlands. Neither Holland nor Belgium was particularly pleased with this arrangement. Limburg was also divided between the two States; Belgium got the old Dutch enclaves on the left bank of the Meuse, except Maestricht, which remained Dutch; Holland retained all Limburg east of the Meuse, and also a part on the left bank, to the north of the old enclaves. 1
Later events have given prominence to the position of Holland and Belgium on the Scheldt. In effect no new situation was set up by the Treaty of 1831 nor by that of 1839, which merely repeated the same territorial provisions. The Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which concluded the Thirty Years' War of Germany and also the war between the Netherlands and Spain, recognized the hold of the Dutch over both sides of the estuary of the Scheldt. The treaty also declared the river to be closed; thus no ships could pass through the estuary between the Dutch banks, to Antwerp. The position of the Dutch on the estuary was confirmed at the end of the War of the Spanish Succession, by a treaty made between Great Britain, the Estates General, and the Emperor, on November 15, 1715. In March 1815 a treaty of the Congress of Vienna declared
1 The divisions of Luxemburg and Limburg are shown clearly in two maps in Hertslet, vol. ii, pp. 998-9.
the Scheldt, along with the Rhine, Neckar, Main, Moselle, and Meuse, to be open to navigation, but the territorial position of the Dutch on the estuary remained unchanged. At the opening of the European War in August 1914 the Dutch Government declared the estuary of the Scheldt to be territorial waters of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and consequently that they would not permit 'the passage across the territory situated within the territorial waters of the Netherlands by the warships or ships assimilated thereto of the belligerents'. 1 During the siege of Antwerp in October 1914 no attempt was made by the Allies to use the estuary of the Scheldt for warlike purposes, but the position of these waters in international law has never yet been precisely acknowledged or defined.
The provisions of the Treaty of 1831 were incorporated in the Treaty of 1839, which has since then regulated the position of Belgium in international law. The treaty was made between Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia, and Russia, on the one hand, and the Netherlands on the other. By Article II the treaty and its annex were placed 'under the guarantee' of the five Powers. Holland was not one of the guarantors. By this Article, each Power undertook to guarantee the position of Belgium as defined by the whole treaty. This was not a mere collective undertaking, where the guaranteeing Powers bind themselves to act together as one body. It was an individual obligation imposed by each Power on itself. 2 The guarantee with respect to Luxemburg, made in 1867, was collective. 3 An individual guarantee is, if anything, more emphatic than a collective one, but the moral obligation imposed by one or the other is just the same. Belgium was thus put into what was considered, by the Powers, to be the very eligible position of a State, with its integrity and neutrality guaran-
1 Belgian Grey Book, in Collected Diplomatic Documents, p. 327.
2 See the remarks of Lord Clarendon, Hansard, June 20, 1867.
3 See p. 258.
teed. 1 As a consequence of this, Belgium was declared 'bound to observe such neutrality towards all other States'. This obligation Belgium honourably interpreted as involving not merely a passive attitude of strict neutrality, but also as carrying with it the heavy task of actually defending herself against an aggressor by force of arms.
In 1870 it was feared that France or Prussia might be tempted to use Belgian territory for military operations. Accordingly, to safeguard the Treaty of 1839, Mr. Gladstone's Government concluded a treaty with Prussia on August 9, 1870. In this the King of Prussia declared ' his fixed determination to respect the neutrality of Belgium ', and Great Britain bound herself to co-operate with Prussia, by land and sea, to defend Belgium, if French troops should enter that country. 2 On August 11 the British Government concluded a similar treaty with France to defend Belgium, in case Prussia should violate Belgium's neutrality. If both France and Prussia had violated this neutrality, Great Britain might have had to go to war with each of them.
That the Kingdom of Belgium is a neutral State, guaranteed in the full enjoyment of its neutrality, independence, and integrity by the Great Powers, has never been denied. The German Imperial Chancellor admitted this in his wellknown speech to the Reichstag on August 4, 1914.
Gentlemen, that is a breach of international law. It is true that the French Government declared at Brussels that France would respect Belgian neutrality as long as her adversary respected it. We knew, however, that France stood ready for an invasion. France could wait, we could not. A French attack on our flank on the
1 The Belgians themselves did not wish to be neutralized. See The Invasion and the War in Belgium, by L. van der Essen ( 1917), p. 11, also The Letters of Queen Victoria (edition 1908), vol. iii, p. 172:
The King of the Belgians to Queen Victoria: --
'This neutrality was in the real interest of this country, but our good Congress here did not wish it, and even opposed it; it was imposé upon them' ( February 15, 1856).
2 The treaty will be found in Mowat, Select Treaties, pp. 39-41.
lower Rhine might have been disastrous. Thus we were forced to ignore the rightful protests of the Governments of Luxemburg and Belgium. The wrong -- I speak openly -- the wrong we thereby commit we will try to make good as soon as our military aims have been attained.
He who is menaced as we are and is fighting for his highest possession can only consider how he is to hack his way through (durchhauen). 1
Yet while no one has denied that under the Treaty of 1839 Belgium was a neutral and guaranteed State, doubt has been cast upon Belgium's own impartiality. It has been suggested that previously to 1914 she had formed a design to join with the Entente Powers against Germany, and that accordingly she had forfeited all right to be considered by others as a neutral State. The Treaty of 1839 contained the stipulation that Belgium should be bound to observe her own neutrality.
The ground of accusation against Belgium does not lie in the fact that she called upon England and France to assist her.
The Belgian Government regret to have to announce to your Excellency that this morning the armed forces of Germany entered Belgian territory in violation of treaty engagements.
The Belgian Government are firmly determined to resist by all the means in their power.
Belgium appeals to Great Britain, France, and Russia to co-operate as guaranteeing Powers in the defence of her territory.
There should be concerted and joint action, to oppose the forcible measures taken by Germany against Belgium, and at the same time, to guarantee the future maintenance of the independence and integrity of Belgium. Belgium is happy to be able to declare that she will undertake the defence of her fortified places. 2
1 German White Book in Collected Diplomatic Documents, p. 438.
2 Belgian Minister for Foreign Affairs to British, French, andRussian Ministers at Brussels
This appeal to the other guaranteeing Powers was a natural consequence of the obligation which the Powers had put upon Belgium, that she should observe her own neutrality. The guaranteeing Powers were bound to help her, once Germany had crossed her border. It would even have been quite correct for Belgium to invite the troops of a guaranteeing Power to enter the country, as a precautionary measure, before the territory had been violated. More than this, it was suggested by the British Military Attaché at Brussels in 1906 that a guaranteeing Power could, uninvited, send a force to Belgium in order to defend her neutrality against a State which was taking steps to violate it. The Belgian Government, however, refused to entertain this view. They maintained that the troops of a guaranteeing Power could only enter the country with the explicit consent of the Belgian Government.
The charge that Belgium had as early as 1906 departed from her neutrality, and taken up an attitude hostile to Germany, is based upon certain papers found in the archives of the Foreign Office at Brussels, after the occupation of that city by the Germans on August 20, 1914. These papers contained a record of conversations between the chief of the Belgian General Staff and the British Military Attaché at Brussels. The problem discussed was the manner in which Great Britain could best co-operate with the Belgian forces in the event of an attack upon Belgium by Germany. 'Should Belgium be attacked, it was proppsed to send 100,000 men.' In another interview the two officers 'examined the question of combined operations, in the event of a German attack directed against Antwerp '. 1
The conversations, when first published in the Nord-deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung
Russian Ministers at Brussels, August 4, 1914; Belgian Grey Book, in Collected Diplomatic Documents, pp. 321-2.
1 See Belgian Grey Book, in Collected Diplomatic Documents, pp. 354-60. Also Aktenstücke zum Kriegsausbruch. Herausgegeben vom Answärtigen Amte, pp. 58, 62.
Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung on October 13, 1914, created considerable surprise, but as soon as the documents were seriously studied they were seen to constitute no departure from neutrality on the part of Belgium, and no intention to violate that neutrality on the side of England or France. The Treaty of 1839 had imposed upon Belgium the heavy burden of defending her territory against any State, however powerful, which should try to get a passage for troops, or a base of operations in her territory. Such defence, on the part of Belgium, could be of no avail without cooperation with the Powers which had guaranteed to stand by her, under the Treaty of 1839. She was therefore not merely at liberty, but morally obliged to concert a plan for such combined operations in her own defence. Therefore, with regard to the conversations between the Chief of the Belgian General Staff and the British Military Attaché, the only question which the Belgian Government can be called on to answer, is this: when they concerted a scheme for operations along with Great Britain against a possible attack by Germany, why did they not make a complementary agreement with Germany, for concerted operations against a possible attack by Great Britain or France?
Such a method would have been in line with the policy pursued by Lord Granville, the British Secretary of State in 1870, when he concluded the treaty to join France, if the Germans crossed the Belgian frontier, and to join Prussia against France, if the French invaded Belgium. That the Belgian Government did not have conversations 'all round' in 1906, was because they had reason to believe that no danger threatened them from France or England, but that serious danger threatened them from Germany. The events which took place in the summer of 1914 indicate that conversations between the Belgian and German. General Staffs would only have supplied Germany with military information which the Government of that country would not have scrupled to use, for reasons of State, when the time came.
On August 2, 1914, before the fateful invasion of Belgian territory took place, the German minister at Brussels handed to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs proposals for the entrance of Imperial troops into the country. The German Government offered to ' bind themselves, at the conclusion of peace, to guarantee the possessions and independence of the Belgian Kingdom in full '. 1 After the taking of Liège, the German Government again made tempting proposals, 2 which would have saved Belgium from further horrors of a hostile occupation, and from the long drawnout agony that was to follow. The reply of the Belgian Government was simple and direct ( August 12, 1914):
The proposal made to us by the German Government repeats the proposal formulated in their ultimatum of August 2. Faithful to her international obligations, Belgium can only reiterate her reply to that ultimatum, the more so as since August 3 her neutrality has been violated, a distressing war has been waged on her territory, and the guarantors of her neutrality have responded loyally and without delay to her appeal. 3
The honesty and fortitude of the Belgian Government and people show clear at the bar of history, and are an inspiring example for all time. No words can convey this more truly than those in which the editor of the Collected Diplomatic Documents, issued by the British Foreign Office, concludes his preface:
This, however, may be said. Charges against Great Britain are fair methods of warfare. They may call for denial, but not for protest. But charges against Belgium, made at such a moment and in such circumstances, can be justified by no standards of policy or morality. They fail before every test known to historical criticism, and
1 Collected Diplomatic Documents, p. 310.
2 Text and trans. in Collected Diplomatic Documents, pp. 335-6.
3 Ibid., p. 340.
the circumstances in which they are made are themselves a refutation. For the sufferings of Belgium today are largely due to her steady and honourable determination to appeal for no assistance which by any stretch of malicious construction could be interpreted as an infringement of the law of her existence.
TREATY BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN, AUSTRIA, FRANCE, PRUSSIA, AND RUSSIA, ON THE ONE PART,
AND THE NETHERLANDS, ON THE OTHER.
SIGNED AT LONDON, 19TH APRIL, 1839. 1
ARTICLE I. His Majesty the King of the Netherlands, Grand Duke of Luxemburg, engages to cause to be immediately converted into a Treaty with His Majesty the King of the Belgians, the Articles annexed to the present Act, and agreed upon by common consent, under the auspices of the Courts of Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia, and Russia.
ARTICLE II. Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, King of Hungary and Bohemia, His Majesty the King of the French, His Majesty the King of Prussia, and His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias, declare that the Articles mentioned in the preceding Article, are considered as having the same force and validity as if they were textually inserted in the present Act, and that they are thus placed under the guarantee of their said Majesties.
ARTICLE III. The Union which has existed between Holland and Belgium, in virtue of the Treaty of Vienna of the 31st of May, 1815, is acknowledged by His Majesty the King of the Netherlands, Grand Duke of Luxemburg, to be dissolved.
ARTICLE IV. The present Treaty shall be ratified, and the Ratifications shall be exchanged at London at the expiration of 6 weeks, or sooner, if possible. The exchange of these Ratifications shall take place at the same time as that of the Ratifications of the Treaty between Holland and Belgium.
1 State Papers, vol. xxvii, p. 990. Hertslet, vol. ii, No. 183. A treaty was signed on the same day between the Powers and Belgium, followed by the same annex. Article II declared that the Treaty of the 15th Nov., 1831, should not be obligatory on the High Contracting Parties.
In witness whereof, the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Treaty, and have affixed thereto the Seal of their Arms.
Done at London, the 19th day of April, in the year of Our Lord, 1839.
(L.S.) H. SEBASTIANI.
(L.S.) POZZO DI BORGO.
ANNEX TO THE TREATY SIGNED AT LONDON, ON THE 19TH OF APRIL, 1839, BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN, AUSTRIA,
FRANCE, PRUSSIA, AND RUSSIA, ON THE ONE PART,
AND THE NETHERLANDS, ON THE OTHER PART.
The Belgian Territory shall be composed of the Provinces of --
such as they formed part of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands constituted in 1815, with the exception of those Districts of the Province of Limburg which are designated in Article IV.
The Belgian Territory shall, moreover, comprise that part of the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg which is specified in Article II.
ARTICLE. II. In the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg, the limits of the Belgian Territory shall be such as will be hereinafter described, viz. : --
Commencing from the Frontier of France between Rodange, which shall remain to the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg, and Athus, which shall belong to Belgium, there shall be drawn, according to the annexed Map, a line which, leaving to Belgium the road from Arlon to Longwy, the Town of Arlonwith its district, and the road from Arlon to Bastogne, shall pass between Messancy, which shall be on the Belgian Territory, and Clemancy, which shall remain to the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg, terminating at Steinfort, which place shall also remain to the Grand Duchy. From Steinfort this line shall be continued in the direction of Eischen, Hecbus, Guirsch, Ober-Pallen, Grende, Nothomb, Parette, and Perlé, as far as Martelange: Hecbus, Guirsch, Grende, Nothomb, and Parette, shall (devant appartenir) belong to Belgium, and Eischen, OberPallen, Perlé, and Martelange, to the Grand Duchy. From Martelange the said line shall follow the course of the Sure, the waterway (Thalweg) of which River shall serve as the limit between the two States, as far as opposite to Tintange, from whence it shall be continued, as directly as possible, towards the present Frontier of the Arrondissement of Diekirch, and shall pass between Surret, Harlange, and Tarchamps, which places shall be left to the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg, and Honville, Livarchamps, and Loutremange, which places shall form part of the Belgian Territory. Then having, in the vicinity of Doncols and Soulez, which shall remain to the Grand Duchy, reached the present Boundary of the Arrondissement of Diekirch, the line in question shall follow the said Boundary to the Frontier of the Prussian Territory. All the Territories, Towns, Fortresses, and places situated to the west of this line, shall belong to Belgium; and all the Territories, Towns, Fortresses, and places situated to the east of the said line, shall continue to belong to the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg.
It is understood, that in marking out this line, and in conforming as closely as possible to the description of it given above, as well as to the delineation of it on the Map, which, for the sake of greater clearness, is annexed to the present Article, the Commissioners of Demarcation, mentioned in Article V, shall pay due attention to the localities, as well as to the mutual necessity for accommodation which may result therefrom.
ARTICLE III. In return for the cessions made in the preceding Article, there shall be assigned to His Majesty the King of the Netherlands, Grand Duke of Luxemburg, a Territorial Indemnity in the Province of Limburg.
ARTICLE IV. In execution of that part of Article I which relates to the Province of Limburg, and in consequence of the cessions which His Majesty the King of the Netherlands, Grand Duke of Luxemburg, makes in Article II, His said Majesty shall possess, either to be held by him in his character of Grand Duke of Luxemburg, or for the purpose of being united to Holland, those Territories, the limits of which are hereinafter described.
1st. On the right bank of the Meuse: to the old Dutch enclaves upon the said bank in the Province of Limburg, shall be united those districts of the said Province upon the same bank, which did not belong to the States General in 1790; in such wise that the whole of that part of the present Province of Limburg, situated upon the right bank of the Meuse, and comprised between that River on the west, the Frontier of the Prussian Territory on the east, the present Frontier of the province of Liège on the south, and Dutch Guelderland on the north, shall henceforth belong to His Majesty the King of the Netherlands, either to be held by him in his character of Grand Duke of Luxemburg, or in order to be united to Holland.
2nd. On the left bank of the Meuse: commencing from the southernmost point of the Dutch Province of North Brabant, there shall be drawn, according to the annexed Map, a line which shall terminate on the Meuse above Wessem, between that place and Stevenswaardt, at the point where the Frontiers of the present Arrondissements of Ruremonde and Maestricht meet, on the left bank of the Meuse; in such manner that Bergerot, Stamproy, Neer-Itteren, Ittervoordt, and Thorn, with their districts, as well as all the other places situated to the north of this line, shall form part of the Dutch Territory.
The old Dutch enclaves in the province of Limburg, upon the left bank of the Meuse, shall belong to Belgium, with the exception of the town of Maestricht, which, together with a radius of territory, extending 1,200 toises from the outer glacis of the fortress, on the said bank of this River, shall continue to be possessed, in full Sovereignty and Property, by His Majesty the King of the Netherlands.
ARTICLE V. His Majesty the King of the Netherlands, Grand Duke of Luxemburg, shall come to an Agreement with the Germanic Confederation, and with the Agnates of the House of Nassau, as to the application of the stipulations contained in Articles III and IV, as well as upon all the arrangements which the said Articles may render necessary, either with the above-mentioned Agnates of the House of Nassau, or with the Germanic Confederation.
ARTICLE VI. In consideration of the territorial arrangements above stated, each of the two Parties renounces reciprocally and for ever, all pretension to the Territories, Towns, Fortresses, and Places situated within the limits of the possessions of the other Party, such as those limits are described in Articles I, II, and IV.
The said limits shall be marked out in conformity with those Articles, by Belgian and Dutch Commissioners of Demarcation, who shall meet as soon as possible in the town of Maestricht.
ARTICLE VII. Belgium, within the limits specified in Articles I, II, and IV, shall form an Independent and perpetually Neutral State. It shall be bound to observe such Neutrality towards all other States.
ARTICLE VIII. The drainage of the waters of the Two Flanders shall be regulated between Holland and Belgium, according to the stipulations on this subject contained in Article VI of the Definitive Treaty concluded between His Majesty the Emperor of Germany and the StatesGeneral, on the 8th of November, 1785, and in conformity with the said Article, Commissioners, to be named on either side, shall make arrangements for the application of the provisions contained in it.
§ I. The provisions of Articles CVIII to CXVII, inclusive, of the General Act of the Congress of Vienna, relative to the Free Navigation of navigable Rivers, shall be applied to those navigable Rivers which separate the Belgian and the Dutch territories, or which traverse them both.
§ 2. So far as regards specially the Navigation of the Scheldt, and of its mouths, it is agreed, that the Pilotage and the Buoying of its channel, as well as the conservation of the channels of the Scheldt below Antwerp, shall be subject to a joint superintendence; and that this joint superintendence shall be exercised by Commissioners to be appointed for this purpose by the two Parties. Moderate Pilotage Dues shall be fixed by mutual agreement, and those dues shall be the same for the vessels of all nations.
In the meantime, and until these dues shall be fixed, no higher Pilotage Dues shall be levied than those which have been established by the Tariff of 1829, for the mouths of the Meuse from the High Sea to Helvoet, and from Helvoet to Rotterdam, in proportion to the distances. It shall be at the choice of every vessel proceeding from the High Sea to Belgium, or from Belgium to the High Sea, to take what pilot she pleases; and upon the same principle it shall be free for the two countries to establish along the whole course of the Scheldt and at its mouths, such Pilotage establishments as shall be deemed necessary for furnishing Pilots. Everything relating to these establishments shall be determined by the regulation to be concluded in conformity with § 6 hereinafter following. These establishments shall be placed under the joint superintendence mentioned in the beginning of the present paragraph. The two Governments engage to preserve the navigable channels of the Scheldt, and of its mouths, and to place and maintain therein the necessary beacons and buoys, each for its own part of the River.
§ 3. There shall be levied by the Government of the Netherlands, upon the navigation of the Scheldt and of its mouths, a single duty of Ifl. 50c. per ton, that is to say, Ifl. 12c. on vessels which, coming from the High Sea, shall ascend the Western Scheldt in order to proceed to Belgium by the Scheldt or by the Canal of Terneuze; and of 38c. per ton on vessels which, coming from Belgium by the Scheldt or by the Canal of Terneuze, shall descend the Western Scheldt in order to proceed to the High Sea. And in order that the said vessels may not be subject to any visit, nor to any delay or hindrance whatever within the Dutch waters, either in ascending the Scheldt from the High Sea, or in descending the Scheldt in order to reach the High Sea, it is agreed that the collection of the duty above mentioned shall take place by Dutch agents at Antwerp and at Terneuze. In the same manner, vessels arriving from the High Sea in order to proceed to Antwerp by the Western Scheldt, and coming from places suspected in regard to health, shall be at liberty to continue their course without hindrance or delay, accompanied by one health guard, and thus to proceed to the place of their destination. Vessels proceeding from Antwerp to Terneuze, and vice versa, or carrying on in the River itself Coasting Trade or Fishery (in such manner as the exercise of the latter shall be regulated in pursuance of § 6 hereinafter) shall not be subjected to any duty.
§ 4. The branch of the Scheldt called the Eastern Scheldt not being in its present state available for the navigation from the High Sea to Antwerp and Terneuze, and vice versa, but being used for the navigation between Antwerp and the Rhine, this eastern branch shall not be burthened, in any part of its course, with higher duties or tolls than those which are levied, according to the Tariffs of Mayence of the 31st March, 1831, upon the navigation from Gorcum to the High Sea, in proportion to the distances.
§ 5. It is also agreed that the navigation of the intermediate channels between the Scheldt and the Rhine, in order to proceed from Antwerp to the Rhine, and vice versa, shall continue reciprocally free, and that it shall be subject only to moderate tolls, which shall be the same for the commerce of the two countries.
§ 6. Commissioners on both sides shall meet at Antwerp in the space of one month, as well to determine the definitive and permanent amount of these tolls, as to agree upon a general regulation for the execution of the provisions of the present Article, and to include therein a provision for the exercise of the right of Fishing and of trading in fish, throughout the whole extent of the Scheldt, on a footing of perfect reciprocity and equality in favour of the subjects of the two countries.
§ 7. In the meantime, and until the said regulations shall be prepared, the navigation of the Meuse and of its branches shall remain free to the commerce of the two countries, which shall adopt provisionally, in this respect, the Tariffs of the Convention signed at Mayence on the 31st March, 1831, for the Free Navigation of the Rhine, as well as the other provisions of that Convention, so far as they may be applicable to the said River.
§ 8. If natural events or works of art should hereafter render impracticable the lines of navigation mentioned in the present Article, the Government of the Netherlands shall assign to Belgian navigation other lines equally safe, and equally good and commodious, instead of the said lines of navigation become impracticable.
ARTICLE X. The use of the Canals which traverse both countries shall continue to be free and common to the inhabitants of both. It is understood that they shall enjoy the use of the same reciprocally, and on equal conditions; and that on either side moderate duties only shall be levied upon the navigation of the said Canals.
ARTICLE XI. The commercial communications through the town of Maestricht, and through Sittardt, shall remain entirely free, and shall not be impeded under any pretext whatsoever.
The use of the roads which, passing through these towns, lead to the Frontiers of Germany, shall be subject only to the payment of moderate Turnpike Tolls, for the repair of the said roads, so that the transit commerce may not experience any obstacle thereby, and that by means of the Tolls above mentioned, these roads may be kept in good repair, and fit to afford facilities to that commerce.
ARTICLE XII. In the event of a new Road having been constructed, or a new Canal cut, in Belgium, terminating at the Meuse, opposite the Dutch canton of Sittardt, in that case Belgium shall be entitled to demand of Holland, who, on the other hand, shall not in such case refuse her consent, that the said Road, or the said Canal, shall be continued, according to the same plan, and entirely at the cost and charge of Belgium, through the canton of Sittardt, to the frontiers of Germany. This Road or Canal, which shall be used only as a commercial communication, shall be constructed, at the option of Holland, either by engineers and workmen whom Belgium shall obtain permission to employ for that purpose in the canton of Sittardt, or by engineers and workmen to be furnished by Holland, and who shall execute the works agreed upon at the expense of Belgium; the whole without any charge whatsoever to Holland, and without prejudice to her exclusive rights of Sovereignty over the Territory which may be traversed by the Road or Canal in question.
The two Parties shall fix, by mutual agreement, the amount and the mode of collection of the Duties and Tolls which should be levied upon the said Road or Canal.
§ I. From and after the Ist of January, 1839, Belgium, with reference to the division of the Public Debt of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, shall remain charged with the sum of 5,000,000 of Netherland florins of annual interest, the capital of which shall be transferred from the debit of the Great Book of Amsterdam, or from the debit of the General Treasury of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, to the debit of the Great Book of Belgium.
§ 2. The capitals transferred, and the annuities inscribed upon the debit of the Great Book of Belgium, in consequence of the preceding paragraph, to the amount of the total sum of 5,000,000 Netherland florins of annual interest, shall be considered as forming part of the Belgian National Debt; and Belgium engages not to admit, either at present or in future, any distinction between this portion of her Public Debt arising from her union with Holland, and any other Belgian National Debt already created, or which may be created hereafter.
§ 3. The payment of the above-mentioned sum of 5,000,000 Netherland florins of annual interest, shall take place regularly every 6 months, either at Brussels or at Antwerp, in ready money, without deduction of any kind whatsoever, either at present or in future.
§ 4. In consideration of the creation of the said sum of 5,000,000 florins of annual interest, Belgium shall be released from all obligation towards Holland, on account of the division of the Public Debt of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
§ 5. Commissioners to be named on both sides shall meet within the space of 15 days in the town of Utrecht, in order to proceed to the transfer of the capitals and annual interest which, upon the division of the Public Debt of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, are to pass to the charge of Belgium, up to the amount of 5,000,000 florins of annual interest.
They shall also proceed to deliver up the Archives, Maps, Plans, and other documents whatsoever which belong to Belgium, or which relate to her administration.
The Port of Antwerp, in conformity with the stipulations of Article XV of the Treaty of Paris, of the 30th of May, 1814, shall continue to be solely a Port of Commerce.
Works of Public or Private utility, such as canals, roads, or others of a similar nature, constructed wholly or in part at the expense of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, shall belong, together with the advantages and charges thereunto attached, to the Country in which they are situated.
It is understood that the capitals borrowed for the construction of these works, and specifically charged thereupon, shall be comprised in the aforesaid charges, in so far as they may not yet have been repaid, and without giving rise to any claim on account of repayments already made.
The Sequestrations which may have been imposed in Belgium, during the troubles, for political causes, on any Property or Hereditary Estates whatsoever, shall be taken off without delay, and the enjoyment of the Property and Estates above mentioned shall be immediately restored to the lawful owners thereof.
In the two countries of which the separation takes place in consequence of the present Articles, inhabitants and proprietors, if they wish to transfer their residence from one country to the other, shall, during two years, be at liberty to dispose of their property, movable or immovable, of whatever nature the same may be, to sell it, and to carry away the produce of the sale, either in money or in any other shape, without hindrance, and without the payment of any duties other than those which are now in force in the two countries upon changes and transfers.
It is understood that the collection of the Droit d'Aubaine et de Détraction upon the persons and property of Dutch in Belgium, and of Belgians in Holland, is abandoned, both now and for the future.
The character of a subject of the two Governments, with regard to Property, shall be acknowledged and maintained.
The stipulations of Articles from XI to XXI, inclusive, of the Treaty concluded between Austria and Russia, on the 3rd of May, 1815, which forms an integral part of the General Act of the Congress of Vienna, stipulations relative to Persons who possess Property in both Countries, to the election of residence which they are required to make, to the rights which they shall exercise as subjects of either State, and to the relations of neighbourhood in Properties cut by the Frontiers, shall be applied to such Proprietors, as well as to such Properties, in Holland, in the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg, or in Belgium, as shall be found to come within the cases provided for by the aforesaid stipulations of the Acts of the Congress of Vienna. It is understood that mineral productions are comprised among the productions of the soil mentioned in Article XX of the Treaty of the 3rd of May, 1815, above referred to. The Droits d'Aubaine et de Détraction being henceforth abolished, as between Holland, the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg, and Belgium, it is understood that such of the above-mentioned stipulations as may relate to those duties, shall be considered null and void in the 3 Countries.
No person in the territories which change domination shall be molested or disturbed in any manner whatever, on account of any part which he may have taken, directly or indirectly, in Political Events.
The Pensions and Allowances of expectants, of persons unemployed or retired, shall in future be paid, on either side, to all those individuals entitled thereto, both civil and military, conformably to the laws in force previous to the Ist November, 1830.
It is agreed that the above-mentioned Pensions and Allowances to persons born in the Territories which now constitute Belgium, shall remain at the charge of the Belgian Treasury; and the Pensions and Allowances of persons born in the Territories which now constitute the Kingdom of the Netherlands, shall be at the charge of the Netherland Treasury.
All Claims of Belgian subjects upon any Private Establishments, such as the Widows' Fund, and the fund known under the denomination of the Fonds des Leges, and of the chest of civil and military retired allowances, shall be examined by the Mixed Commission mentioned in Article XIII, and shall be determined according to the tenour of the regulations by which these funds or chests are governed.
The Securities furnished, as well as the payments made, by Belgian accountants, the judicial deposits and consignments, shall equally be restored to the parties entitled thereto, on the presentation of their proofs.
If, under the head of what are called the French Liquidations, any Belgian subjects should still be able to bring forward Claims to be inscribed, such Claims shall also be examined and settled by the said Commission.
All Judgments given in Civil and Commercial matters, all acts of the civil power, and all acts executed before a notary or other public officer under the Belgian administration, in those parts of Limburg and of the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg, of which His Majesty the King of the Netherlands, Grand Duke of Luxemburg, is to be replaced in possession, shall be maintained in full force and validity.
Immediately after the exchange of the Ratifications of the Treaty to be concluded between the two Parties, the necessary orders shall be transmitted to the Commanders of the respective Troops, for the evacuation of the Territories, Towns, Fortresses, and Places which change domination. The Civil Authorities thereof shall also, at the same time, receive the necessary orders for delivering over the said Territories, Towns, Fortresses, and Places, to the Commissioners who shall be appointed by both Parties for this purpose.
This evacuation and delivery shall be effected so as to be completed in the space of 15 days, or sooner if possible.
REPORT OF CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN THE BELGIAN AND BRITISH MILITARY AUTHORITIES, 1906. 1
Letter [from the Chief of the Belgian General Staff] to the [Belgian] Minister of War respecting the confidential Interviews.
Brussels, April 10, 1906.
I have the honour to furnish herewith a summary of the conversations which I have had with LieutenantColonel Barnardiston, which I have already reported to you verbally.
His first visit was in the middle of January. LieutenantColonel Barnardiston told me of the preoccupation of the British General Staff concerning the general political situation and the existing possibilities of war. Should Belgium be attacked, it was proposed to send about 100,000 men.
The lieutenant-colonel having asked me how we should interpret such a step, I answered that, from the military point of view, it could only be advantageous; but that this question of intervention had also a political side, and that I must accordingly consult the Minister of War.
Lieutenant-Colonel Barnardiston replied that his Minister at Brussels would speak about it to our Minister for Foreign Affairs.
1 In French. ( Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeituhng, October 13, 1914; Aktenstücke zum Kriegsausbruch. Heyausgegeben vom Auswärtigen Amte., pp. 58-72; Collected Diplomatic Documents, pp. 354 ff.
He continued as follows: The disembarkation of the British troops would take place on the French coast, in the neighbourhood of Dunkirk and Calais, in such a manner that the operation might be carried out in the quickest possible way. 1 Landing at Antwerp would take much longer, as larger transports would be required, and, moreover, the risk would be greater.
This being so, several other points remained to be decided, viz., transport by rail, the question of requisitions to which the British Army might have recourse, the question of the chief command of the allied forces.
He enquired whether our arrangements were adequate to secure the defence of the country during the crossing and transport of the British troops -- a period which he estimated at about ten days.
I answered that the fortresses of Namur and Liège were safe against a surprise attack, and that in four days our field army of 100,000 men would be ready to take the field. After having expressed his entire satisfaction at what I had said, my visitor emphasized the following points:
(1) Our conversation was absolutely confidential;
(2) it was in no way binding on his Government;
(3) his Minister, the British General Staff, he, and myself were the only persons then aware of the matter;
(4) he did not know whether his Sovereign had been consulted.
At a subsequent meeting Lieutenant-Colonel Barnardiston assured me that he had never received any confidential information from other military attachés about our army. He then gave me a detailed statement of the strength of the British forces: we might rely on it that, in twelve or thirteen days, two army corps, four cavalry brigades, and two brigades of mounted infantry would be landed.
He asked me to study the question of the transport of these forces to that part of the country where they would be most useful, and with this object in view he promised me a detailed statement of the composition of the landing force.
He reverted to the question of the effective strength of
1 The following marginal note occurs in the facsimile: --
'The entry of the English into Belgium would only take place after the violation of our neutrality by Germany.'
our field army, and considered it important that no detachments from that army should be sent to Namur and Liège, as those fortresses were provided with adequate garrisons.
He drew my attention to the necessity of letting the British Army take full advantage of the facilities afforded under our regulations respecting military requirements. Finally, he laid stress on the question of the chief command.
I replied that I could say nothing on the latter point, and I promised that I would study the other questions with care.
Later, the British military attaché confirmed his previous estimate: twelve days at least were indispensable to carry out the landing on the coast of France. It would take much longer (from one to two and a half months) to land 100,000 men at Antwerp.
On my objecting that it would be useless to wait till the disembarkation was finished, before beginning the transport by rail, and that it would be better to send on the troops by degrees as they arrived on the coast, Lieutenant-Colonel Barnardiston promised me precise details of the daily disembarkation table.
With regard to the question of military requirements, I informed my visitor that that question would easily be arranged.
As the plans of the British General Staff advanced, the details of the problem were worked out with greater precision. The colonel assured me that half the British Army could be landed in eight days, and the remainder at the end of the twelfth or thirteenth day, except the mounted infantry, on which we could not count till later.
Nevertheless, I felt bound once more to urge the necessity of knowing the numbers to be landed daily, so as to work out the railway arrangements for each day.
The British attaché then spoke to me of various other questions, viz. : (I) The necessity of maintaining secrecy about the operations, and of ensuring that the Press should observe this carefully; (2) the advantages there would be in attaching a Belgian officer to each British staff, an interpreter to each commanding officer, and gendarmes to each unit to help the British military police.
At another interview Lieutenant-Colonel Barnardiston and I examined the question of combined operations in the event of a German attack directed against Antwerp, and on the hypothesis of our country being crossed in order to reach the French Ardennes.
Later on, the colonel signified his concurrence in the scheme I had laid before him, and assured me of the assent of General Grierson, Chief of the British General Staff.
Other questions of secondary importance were likewise disposed of, particularly those respecting intermediary officers, interpreters, gendarmes, maps, illustrations of uniforms, English translations of extracts from certain Belgian regulations, the regulation of customs dues chargeable on the British supplies, hospital accommodation for the wounded of the allied army, &c. Nothing was settled as to the possible control of the Press by the Government or the military authorities.
In the course of the last meetings which I had with the British attaché he communicated to me the daily disembarkation table of the troops to be landed at Boulogne, Calais and Cherbourg. The distance of the latter place, included owing to certain technical considerations, would cause a certain delay. The first corps would be landed on the tenth day, the second corps on the fifteenth day. Our railways would carry out the transport operations in such a way that the arrival of the first corps, either towards Brussels-Louvain or towards Namur-Dinant, would be completed on the eleventh day and that of the second corps on the sixteenth day.
I finally urged once again, as forcibly as was within my power, the necessity of accelerating the transport by sea in order that the British troops might be with us between the eleventh and the twelfth day; the very best and most favourable results would accrue from the concerted and simultaneous action by the allied forces. On the other hand, a serious check would ensue if such co-operation could not be achieved. Colonel Barnardiston assured me that everything would be done with that end in view.
In the course of our conversations I took the opportunity of convincing the military attaché of our resolve to impede the enemies' movements as far as lay within our power, and not to take refuge in Antwerp from the outset. Lieutenant-Colonel Barnardiston, on his side, informed me that he had at present little confidence in the support or intervention of Holland. He likewise confided to me that his Government intended to move the British base of supplies from the French coast to Antwerp as soon as the North Sea had been cleared of all German warships.
At all our interviews the colonel regularly communicated to me any confidential information he possessed respecting the military condition and general situation of our eastern neighbour, &c. At the same time he laid stress on the imperative need for Belgium to keep herself well informed of what was going on in the neighbouring Rhine country. I had to admit to him that in our country the intelligence service beyond the frontier was not, in times of peace, directly under our General Staff. We had no military attachés at our legations. I took care, however, not to admit to him that I was unaware whether the secret service, prescribed in our regulations, was organized or not. But it is my duty here to call attention to this state of affairs, which places us in a position of glaring inferiority to that of our neighbours, our possible enemies.
Major-General, Chief of General Staff.
Note. -- When I met General Grierson at Compiègne at the manœuvres of 1906 he assured me that the reorganization of the British army would result not only in ensuring the landing of 150,000 men, but in enabling them to take the field in a shorter period than had been previously estimated.
End of September 1906.
The British military attaché asked to see General Jungbluth. These gentlemen met on the 23rd April.
Lieutenant-Colonel Bridges told the general that Great Britain had, available for dispatch to the Continent, an army composed of six divisions of infantry and eight brigades of cavalry, in all 160,000 men. She had also all that she needed for home defence. Everything was ready.
The British Government, at the time of the recent events, would have immediately landed troops on our territory, even if we had not asked for help.
The general protested that our consent would be necessary for this.
The military attaché answered that he. knew that, but that as we were not in a position to prevent the Germans passing through our territory, Great Britain would have landed her troops in any event.
As to the place of landing, the military attaché was not explicit. He said the coast was rather long; but the general knows that Mr. Bridges made daily visits to Zeebrugge from Ostend during the Easter holidays.
The general added that, after all, we were, besides, perfectly able to prevent the Germans from going through.
April 24, 1912.
TURKEY AND THE POWERS OF EUROPE
Turkey and the Public Law of Europe -- The Capitulations -- The Treaty of Kutschuk-Kainardji -- The Holy Places -- Russia and the Orthodox Church -- Invasion of the Principalities -Attitude of Great Britain and France -- The tradition of friendship -- Nicholas I: Lord Stratford de Redcliffe -- The Vienna Note -- The War of 1853-6 -- Admission of Turkey to the Public Law of Europe -- Russian aspirations towards Constantinople -Policy of Pitt -- Treaty of Tilsit -- Treaty of Bucharest ( 1812) -Greek War of Independence -- Treaty of Adrianople -- Mehemet Ali -- Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi -- Lord Palmerston and the Quadruple Alliance -- Convention of the Straits -- Treaty of Paris -- Collective guarantee to Turkey -- Reforms promised -Closing of Straits -- Neutralization of Black Sea -- Navigation of the Danube -- European Commission -- Roumania -- The Bessarabian Frontier -- Serbia -- The Äland Islands -- Declaration of Paris respecting Maritime Law.
Texts: The Treaty of Paris ( 1856) -- The Straits Convention ( 1856) -- The Declaration of Paris ( 1856).
Up till the year 1856 the Public Law of Europe had to a large extent consisted of the Acts of the Congress of Vienna ( 1814-15) and the treaties which were consequential to it. But in the Vienna Settlement Turkey had no part. It stood outside the Public Law of Europe, nor was it recognized in any Concert of European States, although it had treaties with individual Governments. The Treaty of Paris, March 30, 1856, admitted Turkey to the Public Law of Europe, recognized it as a European State, and guaranteed its position. This was the result of the war between Russia on the one part, and Turkey, Great Britain, France, and Sardinia, on the other, popularly known in this country as the Crimean War.
Most of the treaties concluded by Turkey with individual European States are called Capitulations, and referred chiefly to commercial privileges, and to extra-territorial rights granted to foreigners resident in Turkey. These Capitulations (which were denounced by the Turkish Government on September 11, 1914) contained causes of grave trouble, as they created an impeyium or rather a series of imperia in imperio, and gave foreign Governments grounds for interfering in the internal affairs of the country.
The Capitulations of 1740 with France and the Treaty of Kutschuk-Kainardji in 1775 with Russia are good instances of the way in which foreign Governments acquired, or seemed to have acquired, the right of interfering in the internal affairs of Turkey. The Capitulations of 1740 with France confirmed all the existing rights and privileges of the Latin Church in Palestine. France therefore appeared to be from that time the protector of the Latin Church in the Turkish dominions. In the same way, the Russian Government claimed to be the lawful protector of the Greek Church in Turkey. Article VII of the Treaty of Kutschuk-Kainardji ( January I0, 1775) between Turkey and Russia is as follows: 'The Sublime Porte promises to protect firmly the Christian religion and its churches; and also it permits the Ministers of the Imperial Court of Russia to make on all occasions representations in favour both of the new church at Constantinople, of which mention is made in Article XIV, and of those who carry on its service, promising to take them into consideration as made by a person of confidence of a neighbouring and sincerely friendly power.' 1 Thus France and Russia both claimed the right of protecting their co-religionists in Turkey.
1 Treaty of Kutschuk-Kainardji, January 10, 1775, in G. F. von Martens , Recueil de Traités ( Göttingen, 1817), tome ii, pp. 287-322. Article XIV refers to the building in the quarter of Galata of 'a public church of the Greek rite, which will always be under the protection of the ministers of that Empire' (i.e. of Russia).
Disputes over these points led to the outbreak of the Crimean War.
The question of the Latin Church came forward in 1851, and caused acute feeling. The church at Bethlehem, built over the place where Christ was born, was in charge of monks of the Orthodox or Greek Church. The Latin monks of Bethlehem did not claim the church itself, but they claimed the right of having the key of the chief door, and also of placing a silver star with the arms of France within the sanctuary of the Nativity. By the end of the year 1852, Napoleon III, who had in the previous year succeeded in making himself Emperor of the French, gained from the Turkish Government recognition of the claims of the Latin monks. The dispute about the Holy Places was thus settled with a victory for France.
The dispute about the Holy Places had no direct bearing on the Crimean War, because it was settled before the war was thought of. But the triumph of France in the dispute hurt the pride of the Tsar Nicholas I, and injured the religious feelings of the Russians, for whom pilgrimages to Palestine were a real thing. Nicholas therefore put forward the claims of Russia to protect all the subjects of the Porte who were members of the Orthodox, that is, the Greek Church. The Turkish Government denied that any such right was conferred by the Treaty of Kutschuk-Kainardji. The claim of the Russian Government was indeed rather a serious one. The Orthodox subjects of the Porte numbered millions, and formed really a separate nation inside Turkey. To acknowledge the Russian Government as the protector of that nation would be tantamount to giving away a portion of Turkish sovereignty. The mission of Prince Menshikoff to Constantinople in 1853 had no effect upon the Turks, who were kept firm in their attitude by the great English ambassador, Lord Stratford de Redcliffe. A conflict of wills was thus set up between the Russian and Turkish Governments, As Nicholas could not by diplomatic means impose his will on the Porte, he resolved to do so by war. On June 22, 1853, his army crossed the Pruth and proceeded to occupy the dependent Danubian principalities of Turkey, Moldavia and Wallachia.
The war had thus begun over a dispute between Russia and Turkey concerning the question of a protectorate for the Greek Church. But the Governments of Great Britain and France felt that something more was involved, namely, the existence of Turkey in Europe. Great Britain and France therefore, to prevent the destruction of European Turkey, directed their efforts first to stop the war and to settle the dispute by diplomacy; failing in this, to save Turkey by taking part in the war. Great Britain and France by the Crimean War saved Turkey in Europe: it is just possible, however, that if they had persisted a little longer in their diplomatic efforts, as Lord Stratford wished them to do, they might have saved it without taking part in the war.
That Great Britain should take an active interest in the question, diplomatically or otherwise, was unavoidable. We had at that time a traditional policy, deliberately founded upon reason and experience, of supporting Turkey, and of opposing Russian designs upon' Constantinople. The forces of Islam are widespread, profound, and incalculable. It was considered safer for us to keep those forces in comparative quiet than to excite them indefinitely by hostility to the Turks. But we could not remain friendly with the Turks without supporting their position in Europe, to which both they and all the Mohammedan world attached the greatest value. The aims of the Russians were incompatible with the existence of Turkey in Europe. The historic movements of that great people have been towards the seas, the Baltic, the Black Sea, the Mediterranean, the Pacific. Constantinople, the gate of the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, the capital of the ancient Byzantine Empire, the great city of the Orthodox Church, was a natural and reasonable object of Russian aspirations.
The Turks by themselves were not strong enough to maintain their hold upon Constantinople. 'The Sick Man' was Nicholas I's term for Turkey; the Ottoman Empire had in his time all the appearances of a State on the verge of disruption, and Nicholas was anxious that a reasonable scheme should be proposed by the Powers for meeting this result. 'I repeat to you', he said to our ambassador Hamilton Seymour at Petrograd in February 1852, 'that the sick man is dying, and we can never allow such an event to take us by surprise. We must come to some understanding.' 1 Great Britain refused to come to any such understanding. Lord Stratford de Redcliffe firmly believed that Turkey had within it the possibilities of reform, of becoming a self-respecting and efficient State. France, too, supported Turkey, for she had great interests in the Mediterranean, and Napoleon III had a vigorous foreign policy.
The Powers acting in concert tried to settle the dispute between Russia and Turkey by diplomatic means. Together the Governments of Great Britain, France, Austria, and Prussia, in August 1853 presented to Turkey the ' Vienna Note', which they had drawn up. The Porte rejected the Note as it seemed, according to its wording, to imply the existence of a Russian protectorate over the Greek Church. Accordingly it was sent back to be re-drafted. But a combination of circumstances precipitated war, before a new Note could be drawn up. While, at Constantinople, Lord Stratford de Redcliffe was working for a peaceful issue, there was a war-fever among the Turks themselves. Napoleon III, acting on reports from the French Ambassador, began to fear that delay might cause the dissolution of the Turkish Empire. In England, Lord Aberdeen's Government came quickly to the same view. On Sep-
1 Quoted by Kinglake, Invasion of the Crimea, vol. i, p. 88.
tember 23, 1853, the order was sent to the British Fleet to pass the Dardanelles. The passage was made on October 14, the Porte having ten days previously declared a formal state of war against Russia. 1
The long and costly war in the end accomplished its objects for the Allies. The Russian invasion across the Danube was foiled by the heroic defence of Silistria, and Nicholas even had to evacuate the Principalities. The evacuation of the Principalities practically involved, for the time being at any rate, the abandonment of the Russian claim to a protectorate over the Greek Church in Turkey. Thus the dispute over which the war had begun was so far settled. But the Allied Powers resolved to go further, and, by destroying Russia's naval base on the Black Sea, to prevent at any rate for a considerable period the advance of Russian power to Constantinople. The siege and capture of Sebastopol accomplished this object, and left, for the time being, no further cause for war. When the invasion of the Crimea was thus crowned with success, a meeting of the Concert of Europe took place at Paris, and the Treaty of 1856 was concluded.
The outstanding points in the Treaty of Paris, March 30, 1856, are that it admitted Turkey to a place in the Public Law of Europe, and guaranteed its integrity. Turkey was therefore no longer outside the pale; the tradition which had come down from the time of the Crusades, that the Turks were the enemies of Europe and of civilization, was abandoned. Turkey was henceforth to be a member of the European States-System, and to be treated as a civilized community.
The Treaty of Paris was thus a definite denial to the aspirations of Russia. That mighty Empire, despite its vast territory, its natural resources, its industrious people,
1 The Declaration of War by Turkey is a very interesting and clear account of the causes of the War. It is given in full in Hertslet, vol. ii, No. 234.
has always suffered from being land-locked. Always trying, it has never completely succeeded in getting room and freeplay upon the oceans of the world. Every inch of its seaboard has had to be wrested from an alien Power. Every crisis in modern European history has shown Russia faced with the prospect of blockade by its neighbours. Against such a contingency, the possession of Constantinople would have at least partially provided. The Turks, however, have been in possession since 1453. By admitting them to the privileges of the Public Law of Europe, the Treaty of Paris recognized them as a civilized and respectable State, and if by her subsequent conduct in the community of European States, Turkey should justify her position there, neither Russia nor any other Power would have a moral right to expropriate her.
This rise of Turkey to membership among the States of Europe was due in great part to the friendship which Great Britain had maintained with her since 1790. By that year the Russian trend towards Constantinople was becoming swift and unerring. The Empress Catherine II was carrying out a successful war of annexation. In vain did Great Britain and Prussia, who with Holland had formed a famous Triple Alliance in 1788, threaten war and prepare their forces. The ultimatum which the allied Powers sent to Petrograd in 1791 was never presented, and next year Catherine concluded the Peace of Jassy, in the modern Roumania ( January 9, 1792), and the port of Oczakov passed under the dominion of Russia. Oczakov itself was of little value as a port, but two years later Odessa was founded near by, and rapidly became a great city, equally important for war and for commerce. Pitt's policy had failed for the moment, but it was not abandoned. Great Britain continued steadily to support the Turks, and their alliance helped to preserve the British Empire during the Napoleonic Wars.
In 1807 (July 7) Napoleon and Alexander I made peace at Tilsit in East Prussia, after the Russians had been soundly beaten at the battle of Friedland. The two Powers became Allies; Secret Articles provided that Russia was to aid Napoleon in his conflict with England, France was to help Russia in her designs upon Turkey. A partition of the Ottoman Empire in Europe was contemplated. The English Foreign Minister Canning obtained almost immediately information about the understanding which Napoleon and the Tsar had come to. From this time the policy of the British Government with regard to Russia, in everything which related to Turkey, became fixed.
The expansion of Russia towards Constantinople was steadily pursued. In 1809-10 a fresh campaign was undertaken, and went favourably for Russia. But the rupture between Alexander and Napoleon made it necessary for the Tsar to free his hands with regard to Turkey. So on May 28, 1812, the Treaty of Bucharest 1 was signed. Russia gained lands east of the Pruth, and Serbian autonomy was recognized by Turkey.
On the whole, the cataclysms of the Napoleonic period left the Turkish Empire comparatively unscathed. The Greek War of Independence ( 1821-9) was to leave a deeper mark. The mediation offered by Great Britain, France, and Russia was rejected by the Turks; and after the battle of Navarino, Russia declared war. The campaigns of 1828-9 closed with the Treaty of Adrianople ( September 14, 1829). Russia had occupied the Danubian principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia, but she now evacuated them, stipulating, however, for their continued autonomy under the Porte with renewed and increased privileges. The Pruth was restored as the boundary in Europe between the Russian and Ottoman Empires. Turkey agreed that there should be freedom of trade and navigation in the Black Sea, and declared the Bosphorus and Dardanelles open to
1 Confirmed and explained by the Treaty of Akerman, September 25, 1826 ( Martens, vol. xvii, p. 1053).
all Russian merchant-vessels, and to the merchant-ships of all other Powers with whom the Porte was at peace.
In 1829, at the Peace of Adrianople, Russia had behaved with great moderation towards Turkey. Nicholas I was at this period aiming not at annexation, but at influence. Turkish power was declining: the Powers of Europe would not tolerate her absorption by Russia, but if Russia peacefully became the friend and protector of Turkey, they might not be able to gainsay such a position. In 1833 Russia achieved this position, and without violence became for a short time supreme at Constantinople.
The Pasha of Egypt, Mehemet Ali, the founder of the present dynasty there, was too great a subject for his master the Sultan. In 1832 there was open war between the two: the organized and disciplined army of Mehemet Ali, under his son Ibrahim, drove the Sultan's army out of Syria, invaded Asia Minor, and having destroyed the Turkish Army at Konieh (December 21), opened the road to the Bosphorus. At last the Turkish Empire seemed definitely faced with destruction, not from without but from within. At this point, Tsar Nicholas I offered his alliance and saved the Porte from Mehemet Ali. A Russian squadron was admitted to the Bosphorus, Russian soldiers were sent to join with the Turkish forces. A defensive alliance was concluded by the Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, July 8, 1833, 1 and Russia became the paramount power at Constantinople.
Article I of this remarkable treaty enacted a defensive alliance between Russia and Turkey. Article III enacted that in order to maintain the independence of Turkey, the Tsar would furnish, when called upon, the forces necessary by land and sea to secure this object. A secret article in conclusion was the most momentous of all: it provided that, although the treaty was one for mutual defence, yet in order to spare Turkey the expense of providing troops
1 Hertslet, vol. ii, No. 168.
for Russia, the Tsar 'will not ask for that aid if circumstances should place the Sublime Porte under the obligation of furnishing it', Instead, 'the Sublime Ottoman Porte, in place of the aid which it is bound to furnish in case of need, according to the principle of reciprocity of the Patent Treaty, shall confine its action in favour of the Imperial Court of Russia to closing the Strait of the Dardanelles, that is to say, to not allowing any Foreign Vessels of War to enter therein under any pretext whatsoever'. This simply meant that if Russia was at war with any of the European Powers, the Dardanelles would be closed to all their war-ships, but that the Russian Fleet could pass freely to and from the Mediterranean. The straits into the Black Sea were to be just 'a Russian fortified post'. 1 The Treaty was to be in the first instance for eight years only.
The Powers of Europe were too vigilant to allow Russia thus to have all her own way with Turkey in Europe. Lord Palmerston, who for so long guided the foreign affairs of England, saw the trend of Russian policy distinctly. When the next crisis occurred in the Turkish Empire, he arranged a joint intervention of the Powers of Europe, and the Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi was never put in force.
The crisis came in 1839, when Sultan Mahmud sent his army into Syria to regain it from the power of Mehemet Ali. At Nisib Mahmud's troops were scattered to the winds by Mehemet's son Ibrahim. Now was the time when Russia might have stepped in to protect Turkey, whose independence was actually threatened by Mehemet Ali. Lord Palmerston, however, intimated that the affairs of Turkey were now the concern of Europe, not a private matter between the Porte and the Tsar. On July 15, 1840 2 a quadruple alliance was entered into
1 Fyffe, Modern Europe, p. 663 (ed. 1895).
2 Convention between Great Britain, Austria, Prussia and Russia, and Turkey, for the Pacification of the Levant ( London), July 15, 1840; Hertslet, vol. ii, No. 190.
between Great Britain, Russia, Prussia, and Austria. France sympathized too much with Mehemet Ali to act with the Concert at this moment, and a war between her and Prussia all but broke out then. 1 By the end of the year 1840, the power of Mehemet Ali had been destroyed in Syria, and the British Admiral, Sir Charles Napier, dictated terms to him at Alexandria. The terms were put into effect by the Sultan, who issued an Imperial Firman or decree on February 12, 1841, granting to Mehemet Ali the hereditary Pashalik of Egypt.
Great Britain, Austria, Prussia, and Russia thus acting in concert had freed the Sultan from his difficulties. They therefore took the opportunity of settling the question of the Bosphorus and Dardanelles. France was glad to reenter the concert. Russia made no attempt to renew the Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi; she no longer expected by agreement with Turkey to control the Dardanelles as an advanced fortified post. Instead the ancient custom of the Ottoman Empire was revived by a Convention of the Five Powers and Turkey. The Bosphorus and Dardanelles were to be closed to foreign ships of war when the Porte was at peace: 'so long as the Porte is at peace, His Highness will admit no Foreign Ship of War into the said Straits.' 2 When the Crimean War broke out, the Porte opened the Straits to the fleets of Great Britain and France. When the war was concluded, the Treaty of Paris re-enacted the rule by which the Straits were to be closed to foreign ships of war when the Porte was at peace. Other matters of the greatest importance for future history were dealt with by the same treaty.
1 It was in this year, and in consequence of the threat of war, that "Die Wacht am Rhein" was written by Max Schneckenburger, a native of Thatheim, in Wurtemberg( 1819-49). The music was composed in 1854.
2 Convention between Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia, Russia, and Turkey respecting the Straits of the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus ( London), July 13, 1841; Hertslet, vol. ii, No. 193.
The preamble of the Treaty of Paris, which included Sardinia, represented by Cavour, as one of the powers of Europe, declared that the independence and integrity of the Ottoman Empire are necessary for the peace of Europe. This rule was converted into a collective 1 guarantee in Article VII, a most important article, which also declared Turkey to be admitted into the Public Law and System of Europe. It was understood, of course, that while thus recognized and guaranteed as a European State, Turkey must behave as such. Accordingly Article IX put on record the Sultan's 'generous intentions towards the Christian population of his Empire', and referred to a Firman issued on February 18, 1856, in which the Sultan had promised a series of excellent reforms. These reforms included 'to each sect, whatever the number of its adherents, entire Freedom in the exercise of its Religion'. All 'Turkish subjects were made admissible, without distinction of nationality, to public employments. Taxes were to be equal for all communities, and the system of direct collection was gradually to be substituted for the method of farming the revenues. 2 All these reforms promised by the Sultan, according to Article IX of the Treaty of Paris, emanated 'spontaneously from his Sovereign will'. But although the Treaty put on record the Sultan's 'generous intentions towards the Christian population of his Empire',
1 For the difference between a collective and an individual guarantee, see Mowat, Select Treaties, pp. xix-xx and xxxvi. The following is the French text of Article VII of the treaty ( State Papers, Vol. xlvi, p. 12):
'VII. Sa Majesté la Reine du Royaume Uni de la Grande Bretagne et d'Irlande, Sa Majesté l'Empereur d'Autriche, Sa Majesté l'Empereur des Français, Sa Majesté le Roi de Prusse, Sa Majesté l'Empereur de toutes les Russies, et Sa Majesté le Roi de Sardaigne, déclarent la Sublime Porte admise à participer aux avantages du droit public et du concert Européens. Leurs Majestés s'engagent, chacune de son côté, k respecter l'indépendance et l'intégrité territoriale de l'Empire Ottoman: garantissent en commun la stricte observation de cet engagement: et considéreront, en conséquence, tout acte de nature à y porter atteinte comme une question d'intérêt général.'
2 Text in Hertslet, vol. ii, No. 263.
it definitely excluded any of the signatory Powers from claiming any right, as Russia had done, to interfere in the relations between the Sultan and his subjects (Article IX). 1
Article X enacted the principle, already laid down in the preamble, that the Dardanelles and Bosphorus should be kept closed to foreign ships of war when the Porte was at peace. This was not an unfair principle, for if it prevented Russia from sending her ships through the Dardanelles to the Mediterranean, it also prevented other Powers from having war-ships in the Black Sea. It has not proved injurious to Russia's interests, as her ships have been able to appear in the Mediterranean, having come from the Baltic. It was from the Baltic that Admiral Rojdesvensky's fleet sailed in October 1904 to the Sea of Japan. The interdiction of war-ships in the Black Sea almost necessarily implied the prohibition of military and naval arsenals there, as was enacted in Article XIII. 2 The invasion of the Crimea by Great Britain and France in 1854 had been directed to this end. While the Black Sea was being neutralized, the Treaty of Paris also secured that it should be open to the mercantile marine of every nation (Articles XI, XII). A Convention of the same date between Russia and Turkey (referred to in Article XIV) provided that it should be open to each of the two Powers to keep in the Black Sea ten light steamships for police purposes. This Convention was not to be annulled or modified without the consent of the seven Powers signing the Treaty of Paris (Article XIV).
The Powers also took the opportunity offered by the Congress of Paris, of regulating by international agreement the navigation of the Danube. This great historic
1 It was announced in the European press on January 3, 1917, that the Porte no longer considered itself bound by the Treaties of Paris and Berlin, 1856 and 1878, and that it claimed accordingly complete independence as a Power.
2 The Black Sea ceased to be neutralized in 1871; see below, pp. 312 ff. See also p. 11.
river was for centuries the highway of migratory nations, who have occupied different sections of its basin. The political difficulties in the way of its free navigation were numerous enough, but the physical difficulties were even greater. Yet as various States controlled parts of the river, only by international agreement could any plan of common improvement be provided.
Article XV of the Treaty of Paris enacted the principle contained in the General Act of the Congress of Vienna (Articles CVIII-CXVII), respecting the navigation of rivers which separate or traverse different States. No toll was to be charged for right of way, nor any duty for goods on board the vessels. The principle of free navigation was to form part of the Public Law of Europe, and to be guaranteed by the signatory Powers. In order that the necessary improvements might be made to the mouths, a European Commission of representatives of the seven signing Powers was established by Article XVI. The Commission was to deal with the river below Isatcha, about sixty miles as the crow flies from the coast. To pay for the improvements, the Commission was given power to levy tolls for navigation over the course of the river under its control.
In addition to the European Commission, for the improvement of the mouths of the Danube, there was to be a River Commission consisting of representatives only of those Powers by or between whose territories the Danube actually flowed. These Powers were Turkey, AustriaHungary, Bavaria, and at the head of the Danube, Wurtemberg. The three Danubian Principalities -- Wallachia, Moldavia, and Serbia -- were still subject to Turkey, but were to be represented separately on the River Commission. This Commission was to make all necessary improvements above Isatcha, and any political arrangements necessary for the free navigation of the river, and was to prepare regulations for properly policing it, and controlling the navigation. It was expected (Article XVIII) that the improvements would be completed within two years. At the end of this time accordingly, the European Commission of the seven signatory Powers was to be dissolved, and the River Commission was thenceforward to have control of the whole of the Danube, both below and above Isatcha. As a matter of fact the improvements occupied many more years, and the River Commission never came into existence. Instead, the European Commission has continued to the present time. Its headquarters are at Sulina. The Commission's powers have been gradually extended upwards from Isatcha to Braila, an additional thirty-seven miles, which is as far as large seagoing ships can proceed up the river. Beyond this point the States which possess the banks have made themselves responsible for effecting the necessary improvements.
Articles XX to XXX refer to the three Principalities of Moldavia, Wallachia, and Serbia, of which the first two became the flourishing and progressive Kingdom of Roumania. The Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, although often treated in an arbitrary manner, had yet always enjoyed a considerable amount of autonomy under Turkish rule. Since early in the eighteenth century they had been governed by 'Phanariot' Greek Hospodars. 1 In 1775, by the Treaty of Kutschuk-Kainardji, Russia had put them under her protection. It was during the war-Austria and Russia against Turkey -- which preceded this treaty that the province known as Bukovina was taken from Moldavia by the Austrians. During the period following the Treaty of Kutschuk-Kainardji the Russian Government, which under Article XVI had the right to make representations to the Porte in the interests of the Principalities, did much to secure tolerable treatment for the Moldavians and Wallachians. During the Napoleonic period there was another Russo-Turkish War, concluded by the Treaty of Bucharest in 1812. In this
1 See p. 102.
war the Russian Army had occupied the two Principalities. They were now restored to Turkey, with the exception of that portion of Moldavia which lay between the Pruth and the Dniester. This portion, which is called Bessarabia, was annexed by Russia. By the Treaties of Akerman in 1826 and of Adrianople in 1829 Russia induced Turkey to confirm and extend the privileges of the two Principalities. On the other hand Russia annexed the mouths of the Danube. When the war between Russia and Turkey broke out in 1853, Moldavia and Wallachia were occupied by the Tsar's troops, but when the Danubian campaign failed the Russians withdrew and the Principalities were occupied by the Austrians. 1 At this point we come to the Treaty of Paris of 1856, a great landmark in the history of the Principalities.
In the first place, Article XX and XXI of the Treaty of Paris pushed back the Russian frontier of Bessarabia, so that Moldavia once more possessed the mouths of the Danube and a considerable tract to the east of the River Pruth. Secondly, the privileges of the two Principalities were confirmed, and guaranteed by all the contracting States, so that Russia had no longer any special position as protecting Power (Article XXII). Articles XXIII to XXVIII referred to plans for securing and consolidating the administration of the two Principalities. An International Commission was to consider schemes of reform, and representative councils or divans were to be convoked in Moldavia and Wallachia, 'to express the wishes of the people in regard to the definitive organization of the Principalities'. The result of these conditions, which were carried into effect in 1857, was that the representative councils in September of that year voted that the two Principalities (still under the suzerainty of Turkey) should no longer be administered separately, but as one State,
1 The occupation of the two Principalities by Austrian troops is referred to in Article XXXI of the Treaty of Paris, March 30, 1856.
under the common name of Roumania. At this point the history of the single State Roumania begins.
The union of Moldavia and Wallachia was not accepted at once by the Powers and Turkey. The two Principalities were left with separate national assemblies. But each assembly ( January 1859) unanimously elected the same man for Governor, Prince Alexander Couza, belonging to an ancient boiar or noble family of Moldavia. This union was still forbidden by the Powers and Turkey, but the national demand in Roumania was strong and persistent, and was finally recognized by the Powers and the Porte in 1861.
Articles XXVIII and XXIX confirmed the privileges of Serbia. This country, the third of the Danubian Principalities, had gained its autonomy by revolts against the Porte between 1804 and 1817, during which the Serbs were naturally much helped by the Russo-Turkish War of 1806-12. The Treaties of Bucharest ( May 16, 1812), of Akerman ( October 7, 1826), of Adrianople ( September 14, 1829), all between Russia and Turkey, secured to Serbia -- somewhat vaguely -- her privileges as a subject and tributary nation. These privileges, however, were defined by the Imperial decrees referred to in Article XXVIII of the Treaty of Paris, and gave Serbia a considerable degree of autonomy under the national Prince Milosh Obrenovitch.
Article XXXIII is a very important one, prohibiting the fortifying of the Äland Islands by Russia, a provision strengthened by a separate Convention between Great Britain, France, and Russia of the same date. The Äland Islands lie at the entrance of the Gulf of Bothnia, and command the great Swedish port and capital city of Stockholm. They had been ceded with Finland to Russia at the Treaty of Friedrichshamm ( September 5, 1809). The Swedes were naturally desirous that the islands which so menaced their trade and national defence should not be fortified, and the British Government was generally sympathetic with them. But it was not till the Crimean War, when an Anglo-French fleet entered the Baltic, that the Powers showed their determination to satisfy the wishes of the Swedes. Article XXXIII of the Treaty of Paris and the Äland Convention were the result. The Russian Government has always felt this restriction upon their right to fortify their own possessions as somewhat galling and humiliating, but the Convention has never been abrogated.
Finally, it should be noticed that the Powers assembled in Congress at Paris, while making the general settlement required by the Crimean War, took the opportunity to make a Declaration respecting Maritime Law in time of war. This momentous Declaration, which has never been denounced, is a masterpiece of brevity and clearness, and its effect on International Law cannot be over-estimated.
The Declaration of Paris respecting Maritime Law was acceded to by most of the Maritime Powers. 1
It was not formally acceded to by the United States, because that Government wished to add to it a stipulation for the non-liability of Private property to capture at sea. As this did not form a part of the Declaration as signed, the conditional acceptance of the Declaration could not be regarded as an absolute accession to that agreement.
On the outbreak of war between the United States and Spain in 1898, however, the President of the United States issued a Proclamation, 2 in which he stated that it had already been announced that the policy of his Government would be not to resort to privateering, but to adhere to the rules of the Declaration of Paris; and the Proclamation went on to declare that:
1. The neutral flag covers enemies' goods, with the exception of contraband of war.
2. Neutral goods not
1 List on p. 1284 of Hertslet Map of Europe, vol. ii.
2 April 26, 1898; see State Papers, vol. xc, p. 380.
contraband of war are not liable to confiscation under the enemy's flag. 3. Blockades in order to be binding must be effective. Then follow other rules not comprised in the Declaration.
In effect, therefore, the United States have acted on the principles of the Declaration, though not formally acceding to it.
GENERAL TREATY OF PEACE BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN, AUSTRIA, FRANCE, PRUSSIA, RUSSIA, SARDINIA, AND TURKEY. SIGNED AT PARIS, 30TH MARCH, 1856. 1
ARTICLE I. From the day of the exchange of the Ratifications of the present Treaty there shall be Peace and Friendship between Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, His Majesty the Emperor of the French, His Majesty the King of Sardinia, His Imperial Majesty the Sultan, on the one part, and His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias, on the other part; as well as between their heirs and successors, their respective dominions and subjects, in perpetuity.
ARTICLE II. Peace being happily re-established between their said Majesties, the Territories conquered or occupied by their armies during the War shall be reciprocally evacuated.
Special arrangements shall regulate the mode of the Evacuation, which shall be as prompt as possible.
ARTICLE III. His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias engages to restore to His Majesty the Sultan the Town and Citadel of Kars, as well as the other parts of the Ottoman Territory of which the Russian troops are in possession.
ARTICLE IV. Their Majesties the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the Emperor of the French, the King of Sardinia, and the Sultan, engage to restore to His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias, the Towns and Ports of Sebastopol, Balaklava, Kamiesch, Eupatoria, Kertch, Jenikale, Kinburn, as well as all other Territories occupied by the Allied Troops.
ARTICLE V. Their Majesties the Queen of the United
1 State Papers, vol, xlvi, p, 18; Hertslet, vol. ii, No. 264.
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the Emperor of the French, the Emperor of All the Russias, the King of Sardinia, and the Sultan, grant a full and entire Amnesty to those of their subjects who may have been compromised by any participation whatsoever in the events of the War in favour of the cause of the enemy.
It is expressly understood that such Amnesty shall extend to the subjects of each of the Belligerent Parties who may have continued, during the War, to be employed in the service of one of the other Belligerents.
ARTICLE VI. Prisoners of War shall be immediately given up on either side.
ARTICLE VII. Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, His Majesty the Emperor of the French, His Majesty the King of Prussia, His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias, and His Majesty the King of Sardinia, declare the Sublime Porte admitted to participate in the advantages of the Public Law and System (Concert) of Europe. Their Majesties 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.
ARTICLE VIII. If there should arise between the Sublime Porte and one or more of the other Signing Powers, any misunderstanding which might endanger the maintenance of their relations, the Sublime Porte, and each of such Powers, before having recourse to the use of force, shall afford the other Contracting Parties the opportunity of preventing such an extremity by means of their Mediation.
ARTICLE IX. His Imperial Majesty the Sultan having, in his constant solicitude for the welfare of his subjects, issued a Firman, which, while ameliorating their condition without distinction of Religion or of Race, records his generous intentions towards the Christian population of his Empire, and wishing to give a further proof of his sentiments in that respect, has resolved to communicate to the Contracting Parties the said Firman, emanating spontaneously from his Sovereign will.
The Contracting Powers recognise the high value of this communication. It is clearly understood that it cannot, in any case, give to the said Powers the right to interfere, either collectively or separately, in the relations of His Majesty the Sultan with his subjects, nor in the Internal Administration of his Empire.
ARTICLE X. The Convention of 13th of July, 1841, which maintains the ancient rule of the Ottoman Empire relative to the Closing of the Straits of the Bosphorus and of Dardanelles, has been revised by common consent.
The Act concluded for that purpose, and in conformity with that principle, between the High Contracting Parties, is and remains annexed to the present Treaty, and shall have the same force and validity as if it formed an integral part thereof.
ARTICLE XI. The Black Sea is Neutralised; its Waters and its Ports, thrown open to the Mercantile Marine of every Nation, are formally and in perpetuity interdicted to the Flag of War, either of the Powers possessing its Coasts, or of any other Power, with the exceptions mentioned in Articles XIV and XIX of the present Treaty.
ARTICLE XII. Free from any impediment, the Commerce in the Ports and Waters of the Black Sea shall be subject only to Regulations of Health, Customs, and Police, framed in a spirit favourable to the development of Commercial transactions.
In order to afford to the Commercial and Maritime interests of every Nation the security which is desired, Russia and the Sublime Porte will admit Consuls into their Ports situated upon the Coast of the Black Sea, in conformity with the principles of International Law.
ARTICLE XIII. The Black Sea being Neutralised according to the terms of Article XI, the maintenance or establishment upon its Coast of Military-Maritime Arsenals becomes alike unnecessary and purposeless; in consequence, His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias, and His Imperial Majesty the Sultan, engage not to establish or to maintain upon that Coast any MilitaryMaritime Arsenal.
ARTICLE XIV. Their Majesties the Emperor of All the Russias and the Sultan having concluded a Convention for the purpose of settling the Force and the Number of Light Vessels, necessary for the service of their Coasts, which they reserve to themselves to maintain in the Black Sea, that Convention is annexed to the present Treaty, and shall have the same force and validity as if it formed an integral part thereof. It cannot be either annulled or modified without the assent of the Powers signing the present Treaty.
ARTICLE XV. The Act of the Congress of Vienna, having established the principles intended to regulate the Navigation of Rivers which separate or traverse different States, the Contracting Powers stipulate among themselves that those principles shall in future be equally applied to the Danube and its Mouths. They declare that its arrangement henceforth forms a part of the Public Law of Europe, and take it under their Guarantee.
The Navigation of the Danube cannot be subjected to any impediment or charge not expressly provided for by the Stipulations contained in the following Articles: in consequence, there shall not be levied any Toll founded solely upon the fact of the Navigation of the River, nor any Duty upon the Goods which may be on board of Vessels. The Regulations of Police and of Quarantine to be established for the safety of the States separated or traversed by that River, shall be so framed as to facilitate, as much as possible, the passage of Vessels. With the exception of such Regulations, no obstacle whatever shall be opposed to Free Navigation.
ARTICLE XVI. With a view to carry out the arrangements of the preceding Article, a Commission, in which Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia, Russia, Sardinia, and Turkey, shall each be represented by one delegate, shall be charged to designate and to cause to be executed the Works necessary below Isatcha, to clear the Mouths of the Danube, as well as the neighbouring parts of the Sea, from the sands and other impediments which obstruct them, in order to put that part of the -- River and the said parts of the Sea in the best possible state for Navigation.
In order to cover the Expenses of such Works, as well as of the establishments intended to secure and to facilitate the Navigation at the Mouths of the Danube, fixed Duties, of a suitable rate, settled by the Commission by a majority of votes, may be levied, on the express condition that, in this respect as in every other, the Flags of all Nations shall be treated on the footing of perfect equality.
ARTICLE XVII. A Commission shall be established, and shall be composed of delegates of Austria, Bavaria, the Sublime Porte, and Wurtemberg (one for each of those Powers), to whom shall be added Commissioners from the Three Danubian Principalities, whose nomination shall have been approved by the Porte. This Commission, which shall be permanent: 1. Shall prepare Regulations of Navigation and River Police; 2. Shall remove the impediments, of whatever nature they may be, which still prevent the application to the Danube of the Arrangements of the Treaty of Vienna; 3. Shall order and cause to be executed the necessary Works throughout the whole course of the River; and 4. Shall, after the dissolution of the European Commission, see to maintaining the Mouths of the Danube and the neighbouring parts of the Sea in a navigable state.
ARTICLE XVIII. It is understood that the European Commission shall have completed its task, and that the River Commission shall have finished the Works described in the preceding Article, under Nos. 1 and 2, within the period of two years. The signing Powers assembled in Conference having been informed of that fact, shall, after having placed it on record, pronounce the Dissolution of the European Commission, and from that time the permanent River Commission shall enjoy the same powers as those with which the European Commission shall have until then been invested.
ARTICLE XIX. In order to insure the execution of the Regulations which shall have been established by common agreement, in conformity with the principles above declared, each of the Contracting Powers shall have the right to station, at all times, Two Light Vessels at the Mouths of the Danube.
ARTICLE XX. In exchange for the Towns, Ports, and Territories enumerated in Article IV of the present Treaty, and in order more fully to secure the Freedom of the Navigation of the Danube, His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias consents to the rectification of his Frontier in Bessarabia.
The new Frontier shall begin from the Black Sea, one kilometre to the east of the Lake Bourna Sola, shall run perpendicularly to the Akerman Road, shall follow that road to the Val de Trajan, pass to the south of Bolgrad, ascend the course of the River Yalpuck to the Height of Saratsika, and terminate at Katamori on the Pruth. Above that point the old Frontier between the Two Empires shall not undergo any modification.
Delegates of the Contracting Powers shall fix, in its details, the Line of the new Frontier.
ARTICLE XXI. The Territory ceded by Russia shall bell Annexed to the Principality of Moldavia, under the Suzerainty of the Sublime Porte.
The Inhabitants of that Territory shall enjoy the Rights and Privileges secured to the Principalities; and during the space of 3 years, they shall be permitted to transfer their domicile elsewhere, disposing freely of their Property.
ARTICLE XXII. 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. No exclusive Protection shall be exercised over them by any of the guaranteeing Powers.
There shall be no separate right of interference in their Internal Affairs.
ARTICLE XXIII. The Sublime Porte engages to preserve to the said Principalities an Independent and National Administration, as well as full liberty of Worship, of Legislation, of Commerce, and of Navigation.
The Laws and Statutes at present in force shall be revised. In order to establish a complete agreement in regard to such revision, a Special Commission, as to the composition of which the High Contracting Powers will come to an understanding among themselves, shall assemble, without delay, at Bucharest, together with a Commissioner of the Sublime Porte.
The business of this Commission shall be to investigate the present state of the Principalities, and to propose bases for their future organization.
ARTICLE XXIV. His Majesty the Sultan promises to convoke immediately in each of the two Provinces a Divan ad hoc, composed in such a manner as to represent most closely the interests of all classes of society. These Divans shall be called upon to express the wishes of the people in regard to the definitive organization of the Principalities.
An Instruction from the Congress shall regulate the relations between the Commission and these Divans.
ARTICLE XXV. Taking into consideration the opinion expressed by the two Divans, the Commission shall transmit, without delay, to the present seat of the Conferences, the result of its own labours.
The Final Agreement with the Suzerain Power shall be recorded in a Convention to be concluded at Paris between the High Contracting Parties; and a Hatti-sheriff, in conformity with the stipulations of the Convention, shall constitute definitively the organization of those Provinces, placed thenceforward under the Collective Guarantee of all the signing Powers.
ARTICLE XXVI. It is agreed that there shall be in the Principalities a National Armed Force, organized with the view to maintain the security of the interior, and to ensure that of the Frontiers. No impediment shall be opposed to the extraordinary measures of defence which, by agreement with the Sublime Porte, they may be called upon to take in order to repel any external aggression.
ARTICLE XXVII. If the Internal Tranquillity of the Principalities should be menaced or compromised, the Sublime Porte shall come to an understanding with the other Contracting Powers in regard to the measures to be taken for maintaining or re-establishing legal order.
No armed Intervention can take place without previous agreement between those Powers.
ARTICLE XXVIII. The Principality of Servia shall continue to hold of the Sublime Porte, in conformity with the Imperial Hats 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.
ARTICLE XXIX. The right of garrison of the Sublime Porte, as stipulated by anterior regulations, is maintained. No armed Intervention can take place in Servia without iprevious agreement between the High Contracting Powers. ARTICLE XXX. His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias and His Majesty the Sultan maintain in its Integrity the state of their possessions in Asia such as it legally existed before the rupture.
In order to prevent all local dispute the Line of Frontier shall be verified, and, if necessary, rectified, without any prejudice as regards Territory being sustained by either Party.
For this purpose a Mixed Commission, composed of two Russian Commissioners, two Ottoman Commissioners, one English Commissioner, and one French Commissioner, shall be sent to the spot immediately after the re-establishment of diplomatic relations between the Court of Russia and the Sublime Porte. Its labours shall be completed within the period of 8 months after the exchange of the Ratifications of the present Treaty.
ARTICLE XXXI. The Territories occupied during the War by the troops of their Majesties the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the Emperor of Austria, the Emperor of the French, and the King of Sardinia, according to the terms of the Conventions signed at Constantinople on the 12th of March, 1854, between Great Britain, France, and the Sublime Porte; on the 14th of June of the same year, between Austria and the Sublime Porte; and on the 15th of March, 1855, between Sardinia and the Sublime Porte; shall be evacuated as soon as possible after the exchange of the Ratifications of the present Treaty. The periods and the means of execution shall form the object of an arrangement between the Sublime Porte and the Powers whose troops have occupied its Territory.
ARTICLE. XXXII. Until the Treaties or Conventions which existed before the War between the Belligerent Powers have been either renewed or replaced by new Acts, Commerce of importation or of exportation shall take place reciprocally on the footing of the regulations in force before the War; and in all other matters their subjects shall be respectively treated upon the footing of the Most Favoured Nation.
ARTICLE XXXIIII. The Convention concluded this day between their Majesties the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the Emperor of the French, on the one part, and His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias on the other part, respecting the Äland Islands, is and remains annexed to the present Treaty, and shall have the same force and validity as if it formed a part thereof.
ARTICLE. XXXIV. The present Treaty shall be ratified, and the Ratifications shall be exchanged at Paris in the space of 4 weeks, or sooner if possible.In witness whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed the same, and have affixed thereto the Seal of their Arms.
Done at Paris, the 30th day of the month of March, in the year 1856.
(L.S.) A. WALEWSKI.
(L.S.) C. M. D'HATZFELDT.
(L.S.) C. CAVOUR.
(L.S.) DE VILLAMARINA.
(L. S.) AALI.
(L. S.) MEHEMMED DJEMIL.
CONVENTION BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN, AUSTRIA, FRANCE, PRUSSIA, RUSSIA, AND SARDINIA, ON THE ONE PART,
AND THE SULTAN, ON THE OTHER PART,
RESPECTING THE STRAITS OF THE DARDANELLES AND OF THE BOSPHORUS.
SIGNED AT PARIS, 30TH MARCH, 1856. 1
ARTICLE I. His Majesty the Sultan, on the one part, declares that he is firmly resolved to maintain for the future the principle invariably established as the ancient rule of his Empire, and in virtue of which it has, at all times, been prohibited for the Ships of War of Foreign Powers to enter the Straits of the Dardanelles and of the Bosphorus; and that, so long as the Porte is at Peace, His Majesty will admit no Foreign Ship of War into the said Straits.
And Their Majesties the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the Emperor of Austria, the Emperor of the French, the King of Prussia, the Emperor of All the Russias, and the King of Sardinia, on the other part, engage to respect this determination of the Sultan, and to conform themselves to the principle above declared.
1 State Papers, vol. xlvi, p. 18; Hertslet, vol. ii, p. 265.
ARTICLE II. The Sultan reserves to himself, as in past times, to deliver Firmans of Passage for Light Vessels under Flag of War, which shall be employed, as is usual in the service of the Missions of Foreign Powers.
ARTICLE III. The same exception applies to the Light Vessels under Flag of War, which each of the Contracting Powers is authorised to station at the Mouths of the Danube in order to secure the execution of the Regulations relative to the liberty of that River, and the number of which is not to exceed two for each Power.
DECLARATION SIGNED BY THE PLENIPOTENTIARIES OF GREAT BRITAIN, AUSTRIA, FRANCE, PRUSSIA, RUSSIA,
SARDINIA, AND TURKEY,
RESPECTING MARITIME LAW. PARIS,
16TH APRIL, 1856. 1
Privateering. 1. Privateering is, and remains abolished;
Neutral Flag. 2. The Neutral Flag covers Enemy's Goods, with the exception of Contraband of War;
Neutral Goods. 3. Neutral Goods, with the exception of Contraband of War, are not liable to capture under Enemy's Flag;
Blockades. 4. Blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective, that is to say, maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of the enemy.
1 State Papers, Vol. xlvi, p. 26; Hertslet, vol. ii, No. 271.
THE DANISH DUCHIES
Duchy of Holstein -- Duchy of Schleswig -- Lauenburg -- Rescript of 1846 -- Hostilities in the Duchies -- Treaty of 1850 -- Treaty of London, 1852 -- The Ordinance of 1853 -- The Constitution of November 1863 -- Lord Palmerston -- The Danish and German Cases -- The Powers of Europe -- Treaty of Peace, 1864 -Convention of Gastein -- Dispatch of Earl Russell.
Texts: The Treaty of London ( 1852) -- The Treaty of Vienna ( 1864).
THE question of the Succession to the Danish Crown, and that relating to the affairs of the Danish Duchies, to which the above-cited treaties respectively have reference, are to so great an extent related to one another that it will be more convenient and less conducive to repetition to deal with both treaties together rather than to separate them into two distinct subjects in their chronological order.
The Duchy of Holstein, though owing allegiance to Denmark, became included in the Germanic Confederation by virtue of Article LIII of the Vienna Congress Treaty of 1815, which declared that 'the Sovereign Princes and Free Towns of Germany, under which denomination for the present purpose are comprehended their Majesties the Emperor of Austria, the Kings of Prussia, of Denmark and of The Netherlands, that is to say . . . The King of Denmark for the Duchy of Holstein . . ., establish among themselves a perpetual Confederation which shall be called the Germanic Confederation'.
The Duchy of Schleswig, long under the sway of the Kings of Denmark, was claimed by Denmark in virtue of guarantees given by Great Britain and France in 1720 and of the treaties concluded with Russia in 1767 and 1773. 1
1 See Rescript of the King of Denmark, July 8, 1846; State Papers, vol. xl, p. 1261.
The relationship of Schleswig to Denmark differed therefore from that of Holstein.
Thus in the eighteenth century Schleswig was a possession of the Danish Crown but not incorporated with the Danish territories. She was bound to Holstein by various interests, and German was the official language. She possessed a separate Diet conferred upon her by Frederick VI, who, however, bound the two Duchies together by placing them under a Ministry and a Supreme Court common to both. This intimate connexion in the course of time caused Schleswig to become more and more German, and in the nineteenth century large portion of the population spoke German. The Danes at length took steps to preserve the nationality of the Duchy by encouraging the use of the Danish language and by other means. This procedure became a grievance to the German population of the Duchies, and by degrees a Schleswig-Holstein party grew up, and the demand was formulated that they should be made independent of Denmark and be constituted one State within the Germanic Confederation. The Duke of Augustenburg, the leader of this party, a descendant of King Christian III, hoped to acquire the Duchies for himself and his House in the event of the Danish royal line becoming extinct -- an event which seemed probable -- and he accordingly sought support in Germany, and succeeded in setting on foot an enthusiastic national movement there in favour of the demands of the Duchies. The Scandinavian countries, on the other hand, were in favour of the views of the national party in Denmark.
The Duchy of Lauenburg was ceded by Prussia to Denmark 'in full sovereignty' by the Treaty of June 4, 1815. 1 Like Holstein, however, she formed one of the States of the Germanic Confederation, and the King of Denmark ratified the final Act of the Confederation in 1820 in the conjoint character of Duke of Holstein and
1 State Papers, vol. ii, p. 182.
Duke of Lauenburg. 1 Lauenburg, however, was not deeply involved in the questions affecting Schleswig-Holstein.
In 1831 the King of Denmark (whose authority in Schleswig and Holstein had up to that time been absolute) issued an ordinance for the erection of Provincial States in Schleswig and Holstein resembling those which had been established by most of the German sovereigns in accordance with the Federal Act of 1815, the powers of these States being consultative only. 2 Similar States were at the same time decreed for the Kingdom of Denmark proper. 3 This arrangement seems to have worked smoothly for some years, until the grievances already alluded to assumed shape in the Duchies, when the King, after long hesitation between the views of the Danish national party and those of the Duchies, appointed a commission to inquire into the relations of the Duchies towards the sovereign State. As a result His Majesty issued a Royal Rescript on July 8, 1846 4 respecting the order of succession to the several territories composing the Danish monarchy, with regard to which, it was therein stated, 'confused and incorrect notions' appeared to prevail. The question, it went on to say, had been investigated by a special commission, the result of whose labours had been to establish the fact that the order of succession was indisputable in the case of Lauenburg and Schleswig, but that with respect to Holstein there were circumstances which stood in the way of expressing the same certainty as to the inheritance-right of all the royal successors to the Danish Crown. 'Meantime', proceeded the Rescript,
'while we would most graciously assure all our true subjects, and especially the inhabitants of Holstein, that our exertions have been and shall be unremittingly directed to remove the hindrances in question and to
1 See Sir Travers Twiss' work on the Duchies ( 1848), p. 2.
2 State Papers, vol. xviii, p. 1292.
3 Ibid., p. 1290.
4 Ibid., vol. xl, p. 1261.
effectuate a complete acknowledgement of the integrity of the whole Danish State so as that the territories at present collected under our sceptre shall at no time be separated but shall constantly remain together under their present relations, and in the enjoyment of all the special privileges belonging to each individually, so would we at the same time in an especial manner hereby assure our true subjects of the Duchy of Schleswig that by this letter it is by no means intended to infringe in any way on the Independence of that Duchy such as it has hitherto been by us acknowledged, nor to make any change in the other relations which do now connect the same with the Duchy of Holstein; but, on the contrary, we would rather hereby renew our promise, henceforward as heretofore, to protect our Duchy of Schleswig in the rights belonging to the same as a territory in itself independent but yet inseparably connected with our Monarchy.'
This Royal Rescript, far from having the reassuring effect which seems to have been contemplated, appears, on the contrary, to have given rise in the Duchies to distrust and alarm. By way of protesting against it, and of emphasizing their views on the subject of their independence, the Duchies withdrew themselves from the Provincial States, and petitioned the King of Denmark on the subject. The King refused to receive the petitions, and Holstein accordingly sent deputies to the Germanic Diet to lay the case before them. The Diet thereupon expressed their non-acquiescence in the refusal of the King to receive the petitions, but pronounced no opinion on the general question at issue, namely the supposed innovations created by the Danish Rescript, and the divergence of views therein expressed.
Popular demonstrations in the Duchies followed, fomented by the Augustenburg faction in Germany. On the death of the King of Denmark in January 1848 they declared their independence and hostilities ensued. On an appeal from Holstein, Prussian troops (as part of the Federal Army) were sent into that Duchy to resist the Danes.
About this time, and subsequently, Austria and Prussia were working against each other for predominance in Germany. The Tsar of Russia urgently demanded the conclusion of the Schleswig-Holstein complication, which he considered to be due to nothing but the intrigues of malevolent revolutionaries in Copenhagen and the Duchies. He declared that in the event of the German question resulting in war between Austria and Prussia, his neutrality would be conditional upon the restoration of Danish supremacy over the rebels in Schleswig-Holstein.
The reactionary party meanwhile gained the upper hand in Germany; Frederick William IV of Prussia so far surrendered on the Duchies question as to declare that he could not conscientiously support national against monarchical rights; Preliminaries of Peace were signed between Denmark and Prussia on July 10, 1849 ( Great Britain acting as mediator), and it was agreed that on the conclusion of a definitive peace the Great Powers of Europe should be approached with a view to regulating the Danish Order of Succession. 1
Finally, on July 2, 1850, a definitive Treaty of Peace was signed at Berlin between the King of Prussia in his own name and in that of the Germanic Confederation, and Denmark. By this treaty all rights which existed before the war, on either side, were reserved; boundaries arranged for; and the right conceded to Denmark to claim the intervention of the Germanic Confederation for the reestablishment of legitimate authority in Holstein. But the questions which led to the war were not thereby set at rest, and hostilities between Denmark and the Duchies were resumed. Denmark eventually claimed the intervention of the Confederation under the Treaty of 1850. Austrian and Prussian commissioners then entered Holstein and negotiations ensued, which culminated in January 1852 in an arrangement roughly to the following effect: --
1 State Papers, vol. xxxvii, p. 132.
1. Schleswig should not be incorporated with Denmark.
2. Non-political ties between Schleswig and Holstein should be maintained.
3. One part of the Danish Monarchy should not be subordinate to the other.
4. The Duchies should have their own Ministers of the Interior and voting power in certain internal matters.
5. The Duchies should have an administrative and constitutional separation.
6. A Treaty should be concluded for settling the question of the Succession to the Danish Monarchy. These negotiations were conducted in conjunction with Great Britain as Mediating Power.
Before the definitive Treaty of Peace was concluded, Great Britain, on the strength of the Preliminaries of 1849, took up the question of the succession to the throne of Denmark. 1 In February 1850Lord Palmerston urged on the Danish Government the importance of settling, without delay, this question which, he stated, was the key to the whole of the questions pending between Denmark and Germany. The choice of some Prince to succeed to the Danish Crown who would equally succeed to Holstein and to Schleswig, would remove the chief difficulty and avoid the separation of the Duchies from Denmark on the failure of the direct line.
After prolonged negotiations through the medium of a voluminous correspondence, in the course of which the King of Denmark designated the House of Glücksburg (Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg and the issue of His Highness's marriage with the Princess Louisa, born a Princess of Hesse) as successors to the Danish Crown, and by means of Conferences held at London and elsewhere, the representatives of the Powers finally met at London and signed the Treaty of May 8, 1852, the object of which, according to the preamble, was 'the maintenance of the integrity of the Danish Monarchy, as connected with the general interests of the balance of
1 Correspondence, State Papers, vol. xlii, p. 831.
power in Europe'. This treaty recognized Prince Christian as the eventual successor to the whole of the dominions then united under the sceptre of the King of Denmark. The question of submitting the treaty to the Diet of the Germanic Confederation was decided in the negative. The claims of the Agnates of the royal families to eventual succession to the Duchies were settled either by spontaneous renunciations of their rights, or by compensation, or in the case of remote contingencies by simply ignoring them.
On July 31, 1853, a Royal Ordinance was promulgated by the King of Denmark settling the succession to the Crown of that country on Prince Christian of Glücksburg and his male heirs, in virtue of the Treaty of May 8, 1852, concluded between Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia, Russia, Sweden and Norway, and Denmark, and acceded to by most of the European Powers. 1
The work of framing Constitutions for the Duchies was then entered upon, and this gave rise to much controversy and many grievances, and complaints that Denmark was neglecting to fulfil the promises made at the time of the conclusion of the Succession Treaty. This went on until in February 1858 the Diet of the Germanic Confederation demanded the fulfilment of those promises affecting the equality and independence of the Duchies, but nothing satisfactory resulted. In 1863 the King of Denmark decreed independent rights to Holstein, and elaborated a Constitution for Denmark and Schleswig which was held virtually to incorporate Schleswig with the Danish Monarchy, but he died before its promulgation, in November 1863. He was succeeded by King Christian IX, who had been designated by the Treaty of London of May 8, 1852, and by the consequent Royal Ordinance of July 31, 1853, as the successor to the throne of Denmark, and to the sovereignty of the Duchies. His first act was to sign the November Constitution of the Danish party.
1 State Papers, vol. xlii, p. 1184.
The Duke of Augustenburg then claimed the sovereignty of the Duchies, and was supported by Austria and Prussia and the Germanic Confederation, in spite of the treaty to which the two first-named Powers had affixed their signatures in 1852. They excused their disregard of the treaty stipulation on the grounds that the treaty had not been submitted to the German Diet and that Denmark had broken her promises of 1851-2; and they refused to recognize the right of Christian IX to succeed to the sovereignty of the Duchies except on the condition that the November Constitution was annulled. England strongly advised Denmark to withdraw the Constitution, and Denmark showed herself ready to follow this advice, but before the proposal could be carried out Austrian and Prussian troops invaded the Duchies and war ensued. Lord Palmerston, the English Prime Minister, described the entrance of troops into Schleswig as an 'iniquitous aggression'. If the German Powers had waited a couple of months, he explained, so as to, enable Denmark to withdraw the Constitution, as, on the advice of England, she was prepared to do, no war need have been made. The war was unnecessary, and therefore 'iniquitous'. This was in reply to observations made by the Austrian Government. In connexion with a remark made by the same Government on the principle that war abrogates treaties, Lord Palmerston observed that 'to make an aggressive war for the very purpose of abrogating them would be a great and evident abuse of an admitted principle'. 1
It would be impossible within the limits of the present work to discuss at length the rights and wrongs of the Duchies question from the points of view of the various Powers interested. The Danish Government maintained that Schleswig was altogether removed from any interference on the part of the Germanic Confederation, and that as
1 Lord Russell to Lord Bloomfield, February 24, 1864. Blue Book, ' Denmark and Germany', No. 5, 1864.
regards Holstein, Denmark had already conferred a great measure of independence upon her. The German Governments held that, inasmuch as Holstein was a member of the Germanic Confederation, the latter had the right of interference in respect of that Duchy. They appear also to have advanced an indirect claim in respect of Schleswig by reason of the long existing administrative connexion between the two Duchies. Moreover, as regards the period from 1851 onwards, there were the undertakings entered into by Denmark with the Austro-Prussian Commissioners in 1851-2, amongst them being the stipulation that Schleswig should not be incorporated with Denmark, that non-political ties between the two Duchies should be maintained, that one part of the Danish Monarchy should not be subordinate to another, &c. The German States maintained that Denmark had not fulfilled these undertakings: on the contrary, that Schleswig was virtually incorporated with Denmark by the common Constitution of November 1863, that the compulsory use of the Danish language in schools and churches in the Germanized portions of Schleswig was a contravention of the promised equality, and so forth. There was something to be said, and much was said, in support of these opposing contentions. No doubt there was truth in the remark of the Tsar of Russia to the effect that the Schleswig-Holstein complication was mainly due to the intrigues of malevolent revolutionaries both in Denmark and in the Duchies. As a consequence of the efforts of the Augustenburg faction, the populations of Germany became permeated with the idea that the cause of the 'downtrodden' inhabitants of the Duchies must be espoused by them in opposition to the 'tyranny' of Denmark. So much so that on the revival of the Augustenburg claims at the death of Frederick VII of Denmark in 1863, more than one of the German monarchs declared that the outcry for war amongst their subjects was so strong that they dared not resist it, having due regard for the safety of their thrones. Denmark sought alliances in her resistance to the Germans, but none were forthcoming. 1 Russia was unwilling to commit herself to take up arms in support of Denmark. She was herself only just emerging from her difficulties arising out of the insurrection in Poland. France and Great Britain urged mediation and furnished remonstrances, but were disinclined for more drastic measures. Great Britain besides was also somewhat preoccupied with the Civil War in the United States. Sweden could not throw in her lot with Denmark singlehanded, although she had previously been prepared to sign a treaty of defensive alliance with her. This combination of circumstances cleared the way for the fulfilment of German designs and the advance of the policy of Bismarck, and accordingly hostilities were begun.
Conferences for re-establishing peace were held in London from April to June 1864, but they broke down over the question of the boundary between Denmark and Schleswig, and no agreement was arrived at. Denmark was defeated by her enemies in the field, and a Treaty of Peace was signed at Vienna between Austria, Prussia, and Denmark on October 30, 1864, 2 whereby Denmark renounced all her rights over the Duchies of Schleswig, Holstein, and Lauenburg in favour of the King of Prussia and the Emperor of Austria, engaging to recognize the dispositions which their said Majesties should make with reference to those Duchies. A small portion only of Northern Schleswig was to be incorporated into the Kingdom of Denmark.
Soon after the conclusion of the Treaty of 1864 Bismarck submitted to the Austrian Government the terms on which the Duchies might be conferred upon the Duke of Augustenburg according to the proposal put forward in 1863. He
1 For a discussion of Great Britain's responsibility see Egerton, British Foreign Policy in Europe ( 1917), pp. 276 ff.
2 State Papers, vol. liv, p. 522
required that the Prussian law for military service should be established in the Duchies; that the army should take the oath of allegiance to the Prussian King; and that Prussian troops should occupy the principal garrisons, besides other arrangements tending to establish Prussian supremacy in those territories. These terms were rejected not only by Austria but also by the Duke of Augustenburg and by the populations of the Duchies themselves, who, with the support of the Federal Diet at Frankfort, now placed themselves in opposition to the manifest designs of Prussia. Thus the relations between Prussia and Austria, as well as between Prussia and the majority in the Federal Diet, became strained in the course of the year 1865, a condition of affairs which was not improved by the high-handed proceedings of the Prussian Commissioner in Schleswig-Holstein, who expelled certain adherents of the Augustenburg faction, and whose action in so doing was stigmatized by his Austrian colleague as one of lawless violence. War was, however, averted for the time being by means of a Convention signed at Gastein (a favourite summer resort of the sovereigns of Austria and Prussia) on August 14, 1865, 1 wherein it was agreed that the cosovereignty of the two Powers in the Duchies conceded by the Treaty of Peace of 1864 should be converted into a geographical arrangement, under which Austria should assume in Holstein all the rights so conceded, and Prussia should assume all those rights in Schleswig. Further, it contained a stipulation that it should be proposed to the Germanic Diet to establish a German fleet, with Kiel as a federal harbour for it; that Kiel should be under the command of Prussia, which should be entitled to erect fortifications there, as well as to construct a North Sea canal; that Austria should cede to Prussia her rights over Lauenburg against a money payment, and other minor stipulations. Herein can be detected the trend of
1 See Mowat, Select Treaties, pp. 71-4.
Prussian policy and aspirations at that time, which were to receive further development in due course.
Upon becoming aware of this Convention, Earl Russell, the English Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, addressed a circular dispatch 1 to certain of the British ministers abroad expressing regret at the course adopted. The Treaty of the Danish Succession of 1852, his Lordship said, had been completely set aside by Austria and Prussia, two of the Powers who had signed it, notwithstanding their assurances given in 1864.
It might have been expected that when Treaties were thus annulled, thepopular feeling of Germany, the wishes of the Duchies themselves, and the opinions of the Diet so explicitly put forth by Austria and Prussia in the sittings of the Conference of London, would have been recognized in their place. In this manner if an order of Rights had been overthrown, another Title drawn from the assent of the people would have been set up, and that Title might have been received with respect and maintained with a prospect of permanence.
But all Rights, old and new, whether founded on the solemn Compact of Sovereigns or on the clear expression of the popular will, have been set at naught by the Convention of Gastein, and the dominion of Force is the sole power acknowledged and regarded.
Violence and conquest are the bases upon which alone the Partitioning Powers found their agreement.
Her Majesty's Government deeply lament the disregard thus shown to the principles of public right, and the legitimate claims of a people to be heard as to the disposal of their own destiny.
This instruction, his Lordship added, does not authorize you to address observations on this subject to the Court to which you are accredited, but is intended only to point out when the opportunity shall present itself what is the language you are expected to hold.
The further development of the Duchies question will be set forth in connexion with the Treaty of Prague of August 23, 1866. 2
1 September 14, 1865; Hertslet, vol. iii, p. 1645.
2 See pp. 241 ff.
TREATY BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN, AUSTRIA, FRANCE, PRUSSIA, RUSSIA, AND SWEDEN AND NORWAY, ON THE ONE PART, AND DENMARK ON THE OTHER PART,
RELATIVE TO THE SUCCESSION TO THE CROWN OF DENMARK.
SIGNED AT LONDON, 8TH MAY, 1852. 1
ARTICLE I. After having taken into serious consideration the interests of his Monarchy, His Majesty the King of Denmark, with the assent of His Royal Highness the Hereditary Prince, and of his nearest cognates, entitled to the Succession by the Royal Law of Denmark, as well as in concert with His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias, Head of the elder Branch of the House of HolsteinGottorp, having declared his wish to regulate the order of Succession in his dominions in such manner that, in default of issue male in a direct line from King Frederick III of Denmark, his Crown should devolve upon His Highness the Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein-SonderbourgGlücksbourg, and upon the issue of the marriage of that Prince with Her Highness the Princess Louisa of SchleswigHolstein-Sonderbourg-Gliicksbourg, born a Princess of Hesse, by order of Primogeniture from Male to Male; the High Contracting Parties, appreciating the wisdom of the views which have determined the eventual adoption of that arrangement, engage by common consent, in case the contemplated contingency should be realized, to acknowledge in His Highness the Prince Christian of SchleswigHolstein-Sonderbourg-Gliicksbourg, and his issue male in the direct line by his marriage with the said Princess, the Right of Succeeding to the whole of the Dominions now united under the sceptre of His Majesty the King of Denmark.
ARTICLE II. The High Contracting Parties, acknowledging as permanent the principle of the Integrity of the Danish Monarchy, engage to take into consideration the further propositions which His Majesty the King of Denmark may deem it expedient to address to them in case (which God forbid) the extinction of the issue male, in the direct line, of His Highness the Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderbourg-Glücksbourg, by his marriage with Her Highness the Princess Louisa of Schleswig-
1 Translation as presented to Parliament, State Papers, vol. xlii, p. 13;
Hertslet, vol. ii, No. 230.
Holstein-Sonderbourg-Glücksbourg, born a Princess of Hesse, should become imminent.
ARTICLE III. It is expressly understood that the reciprocal Rights and Obligations of His Majesty the King of Denmark, and of the Germanic Confederation, concerning the Duchies of Holstein and Lauenburg, Rights and Obligations established by the Federal Act of 1815, and by the existing Federal Right, shall not be affected by the present Treaty.
ARTICLE IV. The High Contracting Parties reserve to themselves to bring the present Treaty to the knowledge of the other Powers, and to invite them to accede to it.
ARTICLE V. The present Treaty shall be ratified, and the Ratifications shall be exchanged at London at the expiration of 6 weeks, or sooner if possible.In witness whereof, the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed the same, and have affixed thereto the Seal of their Arms.
Done at London, the 8th day of May, in the year of Our Lord, 1852.
(L.S.) A. WALEWSKI.
TREATY OF PEACE BETWEEN AUSTRIA, PRUSSIA, AND DENMARK.
SIGNED AT VIENNA, OCTOBER 30TH, 1864. 1
ARTICLE I. There shall be in the future peace and friendship between their Majesties the King of Prussia and the Emperor of Austria and his Majesty the King of Denmark as well as between their heirs and successors, their respective states and subjects in perpetuity.
ARTICLE II. All the Treaties and Conventions concluded before the war between the High Contracting Parties are re-established in force in so far as they are not abrogated or modified by the tenor of the present Treaty.
1 Translation from State Papers, vol. liv, p. 522; Hertslet, vol. iii, No. 367. The text as given in Hertslet omits Articles VI to XXI.
ARTICLE III. His Majesty the King of Denmark renounces all his rights over the Duchies of Schleswig, Holstein and Lauenburg, in favour of their Majesties the King of Prussia and the Emperor of Austria, pledging himself to recognise the dispositions which their said Majesties shall make with regard to these Duchies.
ARTICLE IV. The cession of the Duchy of Schleswig includes all the islands belonging to that Duchy as well as the territory situated on terra firma.
In order to simplify the delimitation and to put an end to the inconveniences resulting from the situation of the Jutland territory inclosed within the territory of Schleswig, His Majesty the King of Denmark cedes to their Majesties the King of Prussia and the Emperor of Austria the Jutland possessions situated to the South of the line of southern frontier of the district of Ribe, such as the Jutland territory of Moegeltondern, the Island of Amrom, the Jutland portions of the Islands of Foehr, Sylt, and Roemoe, &c.
On the other hand their Majesties the King of Prussia and the Emperor of Austria agree that an equivalent portion of Schleswig comprising, besides the Island of Aeroe, territories which shall connect the above-mentioned district of Ribe with the rest of Jutland, and which shall correct the frontier line between Jutland and Schleswig on the side of Kolding, shall be detached from the Duchy of Schleswig and incorporated in the Kingdom of Denmark.
ARTICLE V. The new frontier between the Kingdom of Denmark and the Duchy of Schleswig shall start from the middle of the mouth of the bay of Hejlsminde on the little Belt, and after crossing that bay shall follow the present southern frontier of the parishes of Hejls, Vejstrup, and Taps, this last as far as the water-course to the south of Gejlbjerg and Bränore, thence following that watercourse from its entry into the Fovs-Aa, along the southern frontier of the parishes of Odis and Vandrup, and along the Western frontier of this last place as far as Königs-Au (Konge-Aa) to the North of Holte. From this point the 'Thalweg' of the Königs-Au (Konge-Aa) shall form the frontier as far as the eastern boundary of the parish of Hjortlund. Starting from that point the line shall follow the same boundary and its continuation as far as the projecting angle to the north of the village of Obekjär, and afterwards the eastern frontier of that village as far as the Gjels-Aa. From thence the eastern boundary of the parish of Seem and the southern boundaries of the parishes of Seem, Ribe, and Vester-Vedsted shall form the new frontier, which, in the North Sea, shall pass at an equal distance between the islands of Manoe and Roemoe.
As a result of this new delimitation, all the titles and mixed rights, secular as well as spiritual, which have existed up till now within the enclosures in the islands and in the mixed parishes are mutually declared extinct. Consequently the new sovereign power in each of the territories separated by the new frontier shall enjoy in this respect its full rights.
ARTICLE VI. An International Commission composed of representatives of the High Contracting Parties shall be appointed immediately after the exchange of ratifications of the present Treaty to carry out upon the spot the marking of the new frontier in conformity with the stipulations of the preceding Article. This Commission will also have to divide between the Kingdom of Denmark and the Duchy of Schleswig the expenses of constructing the new high-road from Ribe to Tondern in proportion to the extent of the respective territory through which it passes.
Finally the same Commission shall preside over the division of the landed and funded property which up till now have belonged in common to districts or communes separated by the new frontier.
ARTICLE VII. The dispositions of Articles XX, XXI and XXII of the Treaty concluded between Austria and Russia on the 3rd May 1815, 1 which form an integral part of the General Act of the Congress of Vienna, dispositions relative to mixed proprietors, to the rights which they shall exercise and to the local relations (rapports de voisinage) in the properties cut by the frontiers, shall be applied to the proprietors as well as to the properties which in Schleswig and in Jutland happen to fall among the cases provided for in the above-mentioned dispositions of the Acts of the Congress of Vienna.
ARTICLE VIII. In order to achieve an equitable division of the public debt of the Danish Monarchy in proportion to the respective populations of the Kingdom and the Duchies, and to obviate at the same time any insurmount
1 See State Papers, vol. ii, p. 56.
able difficulties which a detailed liquidation of the reciprocal rights and claims would present, the High Contracting Parties have fixed the share of the public debt of the Danish Monarchy which shall be laid at the charge of the Duchies, at the round sum of 29 million thalers (Danish money).
ARTICLE IX. The part of the public debt of the Danish Monarchy, which, in accordance with the preceding article, shall fall to the charge of the Duchies, shall be paid, under the guarantee of their Majesties the King of Prussia and the Emperor of Austria, as a debt of the three abovementioned Duchies to the Kingdom of Denmark, in the period of one year or sooner if possible, dating from the definitive organization of the Duchies.For the payment of this debt the Duchies may make use, in whole or in part, of any of the following methods:
1. Payment in ready money (75 Prussian thalers = 100 thalers in Danish money);
2. Remittance to the Danish Treasury of non-redeemable (non-remboursables) bonds bearing interest at 4 per cent. and belonging to the interior debt of the Danish Monarchy;
3. Remittance to the Danish Treasury of new State obligations to be issued by the Duchies, the value of which shall be stated in Prussian thalers (at the rate of 30 the pound) or in bank marks of Hamburg, and which shall be paid off by means of a halfyearly annuity of 3 per cent. of the original principal of the debt, of which 2 per cent. shall represent the interest of the debt due at each term, while the remainder shall be paid by way of sinking fund (amortissement).
The above-mentioned payment of the half-yearly annuity of 3 per cent. shall be made not only by the public treasuries of the Duchies but also by the banking-houses of Berlin and Hamburg.
The obligations mentioned under 2 and 3 shall be received by the Danish Treasury at their face value.
ARTICLE X. Up till the period when the Duchies shall be definitively charged with the sum which they shall have to pay in accordance with Article VIII of the present Treaty, instead of their quota of the public debt of the Danish Monarchy, they shall pay half-yearly 2 per cent. of the said sum, that is 580,000 thalers (Danish money). This payment shall be carried out in such a way that the interest and the charges of the Danish debt which have been met up till now by the public treasuries of the Duchies shall be also henceforward paid by these same treasuries. These payments shall be made each half-year, and in the case where they would not amount to the above-mentioned sum, the Duchies shall have to pay the remainder to the Danish Treasury in ready money; in the contrary case the surplus shall be paid back to them also in ready money.
The liquidation shall be carried out between Denmark and the authorities charged with the superior administration of the Duchies after the method stipulated in the present Article or every quarter in so far as on the one side and on the other it shall be judged necessary. The first payment shall have specially for its object all the interest and charges of the public debt of the Danish Monarchy paid after the 23rd December, 1863.
ARTICLE XI. The sums representing the equivalent of the so-called 'Holstein-Ploen', the remainder of the indemnity for the former possessions of the Duke of Augustenburg, including the prior debt with which they are encumbered and the 'domain' obligations of Schleswig and Holstein, shall be laid exclusively to the charge of the Duchies.
ARTICLE XII. The Governments of Prussia and of Austria shall be reimbursed by the Duchies for the expenses of the war.
ARTICLE XIII. His Majesty the King of Denmark pledges himself to restore immediately after the exchange of ratifications of the present Treaty, with their cargoes, all the Prussian, Austrian, and German merchant vessels taken during the war, as well as the cargoes belonging to Prussian, Austrian, and German subjects seized on neutral vessels; as well as all the vessels seized by Denmark for military reasons in the ceded Duchies.
The goods here mentioned shall be surrendered in the condition in which they happen to be, bona fide, at the time of their restitution.
In cases in which the goods to be surrendered no longer exist, the value shall be handed over, and if they have lost considerably in value since their seizure, the owners shall be indemnified in proportion. Further, it is recognized as obligatory to indemnify the freighter and the crew of the vessels and the owners of cargoes for all the expenses and direct losses which shall be proved to have been caused by the seizure of the ships, such as the harbour-dues or roadstead-dues (Liegegelder), expenses of court, and expenses incurred for the up-keep or the homeward journey of the ships and their crews.
As for the ships which cannot actually be given back, the indemnities to be granted shall be reckoned upon the basis of the value which these ships bore at the time of their capture. As regards the damaged cargoes or those which no longer exist, the indemnity shall be fixed according to the value which they would have had at the place of their destination at the time when the vessel should have reached it on a calculation of probabilities.
Their Majesties the King of Prussia and the Emperor of Austria in a similar manner shall cause the restitution of merchant ships taken by their troops or their ships of war, as well as their cargoes, in so far as they belonged to private persons.
If the restitution cannot actually be made, the indemnity shall be fixed according to the principles indicated above.
Their said Majesties pledge themselves at the same time to include in their statement of accounts the sum of the contributions of war raised in ready money by their troops in Jutland. This sum shall be deducted from the indemnities to be paid by Denmark according to the principles established by the present Article.
Their Majesties the King of Prussia, the Emperor of Austria, and the King of Denmark shall appoint a special Commission, which shall fix the amount of the respective indemnities and which shall assemble at Copenhagen not later than 6 weeks after the exchange of ratifications of the present Treaty.
This Commission shall endeavour to accomplish its task in the space of 3 months. If, after that time, it has not been able to agree upon all the claims presented to it, those claims which have not been decided shall be submitted to the decision of an arbitrator. In this event their Majesties the King of Prussia, the Emperor of Austria, and his Majesty the King of Denmark shall come to an understanding as to the choice of an arbitrator.
The indemnities shall be paid at the latest 4 weeks afrer having been definitively fixed.
ARTICLE XIV. The Danish Government shall be charged with the reimbursement of all the sums paid by the subjects of the Duchies, by the communes, public establishments and corporations into the Danish public treasuries as pledge, deposit, or security.Moreover the following shall be reimbursed to the Duchies:
1. The deposits allocated to the redemption of the Holstein treasury bonds (Kassenscheine);
2. The funds destined for the construction of prisons;
3. The funds of insurances against fire;
4. Deposit accounts (Caisse des depôts).
5. The capital arising from bequests belonging to communes or public institutions in the Duchies.
6. The funds in cash (Kassenbehalte) arising from special receipts of the Duchies and which were bona fide their public cash at the time of the federal execution and of the occupation of those countries.
An International Commission shall be charged with the liquidation of the total of the above-mentioned sums, deducting the expenses incurred in the special administration of the Duchies.
The collection of antiquities at Flensburg, which was connected with the history of Schleswig, but which has been in great part dispersed during the late events, shall again be collected there with the help of the Danish Government.
Furthermore, Danish subjects, communes, public establishments and corporations which shall have deposited money as pledge, deposit, or security in the public treasuries of the Duchies shall be accurately reimbursed by the new Government.
ARTICLE XV. The pensions charged upon the special budgets, either of the Kingdom of Denmark or of the Duchies, shall continue to be paid by the respective countries. The recipients shall be at liberty to choose their domicile either in the Kingdom or in the Duchies.
All the other pensions, civil as well as military (including the pensions of the employees on the Civil List of his late Majesty, King Frederick VII, of his late Royal Highness Prince Ferdinand and of her late Royal Highness the Landgrave Charlotte of Hesse, née Princess of Denmark, and the pensions which have been paid up till now by the Secretary of Bounties (Secrétariat des Grâces) shall be divided between the Kingdom and the Duchies according to the proportion of their respective populations.
For this purpose it has been agreed to have a list drawn up of all these pensions, to convert their value as lifeinterest into capital, and invite all the recipients to declare if, in the future, they desire to draw their pensions in the Kingdom or in the Duchies.
Should it happen that as a result of these options the proportion between the two quotas, that is to say, between the share falling to the charge of the Duchies and that remaining to the charge of the Kingdom, should not be in conformity with the proportional principle of the respective populations, the difference shall be paid by the party which it concerns.
The pensions charged on the general fund for widows and on the pension fund for military subalterns shall continue to be paid as in the past, in so far as the funds suffice. As regards the supplementary sums which the State will have to pay to these funds, the Duchies shall be responsible for a share of these supplementary sums according to the proportion of their respective populations.
Their share in the institution for life annuities and life assurances founded in 1842 in Copenhagen, in which individual natives of the Duchies have acquired rights, is expressly reserved for them.
An International Commission composed of representatives of the two parties shall meet at Copenhagen immediately after the exchange of ratifications of the present Treaty, to regulate in detail the stipulations of this Article.
ARTICLE. XVI. The Royal Government of Denmark shall be responsible for the payment of the following appanages: of her Majesty the Dowager Queen Caroline Amelia, of her Royal Highness the Hereditary Princess Caroline, of her Royal Highness the Duchess Wilhelmina Maria of Gliicksbourg, of her Highness the Duchess Caroline Charlotte Marianne of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, of her Highness the Dowager Duchess Louise Caroline of Glücksbourg, of his Highness Prince Frederick of Hesse, of their Royal Highnesses the Princesses Charlotte, Victoria and Amelia of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderbourg-Augustenbourg.
The quota of this payment falling to the charge of the Duchies according to the proportion of their populations, shall be reimbursed to the Danish Government by that of the Duchies.
The Commission mentioned in the preceding article shall be also responsible for making the arrangements necessary for the execution of the present Article.
ARTICLE XVII. The new Government of the Duchies succeeds to the rights and obligations resulting from contracts regularly stipulated by the administration of His Majesty the King of Denmark for the objects of public interest specially concerning the countries ceded.
It is understood that all the obligations resulting from contracts stipulated by the Danish Government in relation to the war and to the federal execution are not included in the preceding stipulation.
The new Government of the Duchies shall respect every right legally acquired by individuals and civilians in the Duchies.
In the case of disputed claims the tribunals shall investigate affairs in this category.
ARTICLE XVIII. The original natives of the ceded territories, being members of the Danish Army or Navy, shall have the right of being liberated immediately from military service and of returning to their homes.
It is understood that those among them who shall remain in the service of his Majesty the King of Denmark, shall not be in any way molested for that reason either in regard to their persons or to their property.
The same rights and guarantees shall be severally secured to civil employees, natives of Denmark or of the Duchies, who shall manifest their intention of leaving the posts they occupied either in the service of Denmark or of the Duchies, or who shall prefer to retain their situations.
ARTICLE XIX. The subjects domiciled on the territories ceded by the present Treaty shall, during the space of 6 years from the day of the exchange of ratifications of the present Treaty and after making a previous declaration to the competent authority, have the full and complete power to export their movable property, free of duty, and to withdraw with their families into the States of his Danish Majesty, in which case they shall retain their status as Danish subjects. They shall be free to keep their real estate situated on ceded territory.
The same facilities are granted reciprocally to Danish subjects and to natives of the ceded territories who are settled in the States of his Majesty the King of Denmark.
The subjects who shall make use of the facilities here stated shall not be subjected, as a result of their choice, to any molestation on the one part or on the other, either in regard to their persons or in regard to their property situated in the respective states.
The above-mentioned delay of 6 years shall apply also to the native subjects of the Kingdom of Denmark as well as to those of the ceded territories who, at the time of the exchange of ratifications of the present Treaty, shall find themselves to be outside the territory of the Kingdom of Denmark or of the Duchies. Their declaration can be received by the nearest Danish mission or by the superior authority of any province of the Kingdom or of the Duchies.
The rights of citizenship, not only in the Kingdom of Denmark but also in the Duchies, are preserved for all individuals who hold them at the time of the exchange of ratifications of the present Treaty.
ARTICLE XX. The deeds of property, documents of the administration and civil justice, concerning the ceded territory which are in the archives of the Kingdom of Denmark shall be dispatched to the Commissioners of the new Government of the Duchies as soon as possible.
Similarly, all those portions of the archives of Copenhagen which have belonged to the ceded Duchies and have been extracted from their archives shall be delivered to them with the rolls and registers relative to them.
The Danish Government and the new Government of the Duchies pledge themselves reciprocally to produce, on the request of the superior administrative authorities, all the documents and information relative to matters concerning alike Denmark and the Duchies.
ARTICLE XXI. The commerce and navigation of Denmark and the ceded Duchies shall reciprocally in both countries enjoy the rights and privileges of the most favoured nation, until special Treaties shall be drawn up to regulate these matters.
The exemptions and facilities with regard to the rights of transit which in virtue of Article II of the Treaty of March 14, 1857, 1 have been granted for merchandise passing along the roads and canals which connect or will connect the Sea of Ford with the Baltic Sea shall be applicable for merchandise crossing the Kingdom and the Duchies by any means of communication whatsoever.
ARTICLE XXII. The evacuation of Jutland by the allied troops shall be effected with the shortest possible delay, at the latest in the space of 3 weeks after the exchange of ratifications of the present Treaty.The special dispositions relative to the evacuation are contained in a Protocol annexed to the present Treaty. 2
ARTICLE XXIII. In order to contribute to the utmost to the pacification of the inhabitants, the High Contracting Parties declare and promise that any individual implicated at the time in recent events, of whatever class or condition he may be, shall not be pursued, molested, or disturbed in regard to his person or his property by reason of his conduct or of his political opinions.
ARTICLE XXIV. The present Treaty shall be ratified and its ratifications shall be exchanged at Vienna within the space of 3 weeks or sooner if possible.In testimony whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed it and have affixed thereto the seal of their arms.
Done at Vienna the 30th day of the month of October, in the year of Our Lord 1864.
1 See State Papers, vol. xlvii, p. 24.
2 For Protocol, see State Papers, vol. liv, p. 531.
[ Previous | Next ]