The great European treaties of the nineteenth century

JBRART

Of

9AN DIEGO

OF THE

NINETEENTH CENTURY

EDITED BY

SIR AUGUSTUS OAKES, CB.

LATELY OF THE FOREIGN OFFICE

AND

R. B. MOWAT, M.A.

FELLOW AND ASSISTANT TUTOR OF CORPUS CHRISTI COLLEGE, OXFORD

WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY

SIR H. ERLE RICHARDS

K. C.S.I., K.C., B.C.L., M.A. FELLOW OF ALL SOULS COLLEGE AWD CHICHELE PROFESSOR OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

AND DIPLOMACY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ASSOCIATE OF THE INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

OXFORD AT THE CLARENDON PRESS

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

AMEN HOUSE, E.C. 4

LONDON EDINBURGH GLASGOW

LEIPZIG NEW YORK TORONTO

MELBOURNE CAPETOWN BOMBAY

CALCUTTA MADRAS SHANGHAI

HUMPHREY MILFORD

PUBLISHER TO THE UNIVERSITY

Impression of 1930

First edition, 1918

Printed in Great Britain

INTRODUCTION

IT is now generally accepted that the substantial basis on which International Law rests is the usage and practice of nations. And this makes it of the first importance that the facts from which that usage and practice are to be deduced should be correctly appre- ciated, and in particular that the great treaties which have regulated the status and territorial rights of nations should be studied from the point of view of history and international law. It is the object of this book to present materials for that study in an accessible form.

The scope of the book is limited, and wisely limited, to treaties between the nations of Europe, and to treaties between those nations from 1815 onwards. To include all treaties affecting all nations would require many volumes ; nor is it necessary, for the purpose of obtaining a sufficient insight into the history and usage of European States on such matters as those to which these treaties relate, to go further back than the settlement which resulted from the Napoleonic wars. The aim of the authors is to present an historical summary of the international position at the time of each treaty ; to state the points at issue and the contentions of the parties ; and so to make readily accessible the materials on which international lawyers have to work. For this reason the pure law-making treaties have been omitted ; the Hague Conventions, for instance, speak for themselves, and in their construc- tion the jurist needs little help from general history.

iv INTRODUCTION

A special chapter has been written on diplomatic forms and procedure with regard to treaties, and this must take rank as a high authority on these points. It will be found of particular value in studying the details of the negotiations which have resulted in international agreements.

With the general law relating to treaties the authors make no attempt to deal, and in that they are well- advised ; both because it is beyond the province of their work, and because on some points as to the continuance and avoidance of treaties the law is still indeterminate and lawyers differ. But there is one point of law on which an opinion has been pronounced in the chapter to which reference has been made, which is a point of much present importance ; and since it is one that is likely to come up for decision in the near future, it may be useful to explain it at somewhat greater length than has been possible in that chapter. It is as to the effect of war on treaties. It may be that the peace settlement will make special provision for the treaties which existed between the belligerents before war, but if that be not done questions must arise as to the revival and continuance of former treaties.

The authors state the general proposition that a treaty is terminated by the occurrence of war between the parties, ' war being considered with certain excep- tions as having the effect of abrogating treaties '. That statement of the law is well founded on authority, but there has been a tendency of late to advocate another view, and there are jurists who maintain that the rule is, or at least ought to be, that, subject to certain exceptions, treaties are suspended only by war and revive on the return of peace. It is desirable on general

INTRODUCTION v

grounds to limit the effect of war on the relation of states as far as may be possible, but the usage of nations up to the present time affords no sufficient foundation for this opinion, in so far as it purports to be a state- ment of existing law.

The effect of war on any particular treaty must depend in the first instance on the character of the treaty itself. There are some treaties which are expressed to operate in the event of war and have been concluded with that object. Such, for instance, are the Hague Conventions and treaties providing for the neutraliza- tion of particular territories. These obviously cannot be suspended or annulled by war ; on the contrary, they are brought into operation by the occurrence of war. Further, there are some treaties which affect third parties, and so far as their rights are concerned it is equally obvious as a general proposition that no belligerent can affect them by a declaration of war against any other nation. Again, there are some treaties which have been fully executed, that is, there are cases in which the obligations imposed by the treaty have been performed so that there is no longer any outstanding liability under them. Such are treaties of cession under which territory has been ceded and sovereignty assumed by the State to whom the cession has been made. It is clear that war does not divest that sovereignty, for it rests on the accomplished transfer and no longer on treaty obligation. So in the case of a treaty imposing the payment of a sum of money by way of indemnity or otherwise, and pay- ment made ; war does not open up that again, for the money has passed and the obligation of the treaty was thereupon ended. Martens and others have classified treaties such as these by the name of ' transi-

vi INTRODUCTION

tory ', because the property has passed under them. But the term is misleading to us because of the sense in which it is ordinarily used in the English language, nor is the alternative ' dispositive ' suggested by later English writers much more lucid. It serves little useful purpose, however, to dwell on a question of pure terminology ; the English lawyer will understand what is meant if these treaties be called ' executed '. The real reason of the exception of this class of treaties is that title rests on a completed act, and not on a treaty obligation of which the liability is still continuing.

It has been said that within the class of treaties which remain unaffected by war are included treaties which create rights over land, and are sometimes called international servitudes. But in the absence of express stipulation the usage of nations affords no sufficient foundation for the recognition of a special class of treaty rights vested with special attributes, and in par- ticular with the attribute of permanency in spite of war, such as is assumed in the conception of international servitudes. The distinction is largely the creation of text-writers, working on the analogy of the rights known as servitudes in Roman law ; a dangerous analogy since the rules of private property cannot be applied with any degree of exactness to the sovereign rights of States. There seems no reason why rights conferred by treaty on one State to be exercised in the territory of another State should be in any different position from that of other treaty rights ; and, indeed, that this is so would appear from the personal element which is inherent in most such grants to a greater or less extent. State A before war may be willing to admit the subjects of State B to the enjoyment of certain rights in the A territories ; but after war,

INTRODUCTION vii

relations stand on an altogether different footing. The fact is, that the personal element enters largely into treaty concessions and that they bear no real analogy to private rights of servitude. Moreover, if that analogy were to apply at all, it must apply equally to the common case of treaties conferring rights of entering and residing for the purposes of trade, for those are rights to be exercised on the soil, if the connexion with the soil is to be the test. But any extension such as that would be opposed to well- established usage. The general question of servitudes was threshed out in the North Atlantic Fisheries Arbitration at The Hague in 1910, and the Award of the Tribunal is an express decision that treaty rights of fishing in territorial waters stand in no different position from any other treaty rights and that there is no special law of servitudes applicable to such a case, even if there be any such special class of servitude rights at all. The decision on this point has not been accepted in its entirety by all text-writers ; some of them already committed to the theory of servitudes are reluctant to acquiesce in an adverse judgement. But it is thought that the Award is a correct statement of international law and that it is in accordance with the practice of nations ; for though there is authority for the general doctrine of servitudes to be found in the opinion of jurists (and even they are not in agreement as to the extent and the attributes of a servitude), there is little or no precedent in the usage of nations.1 Indeed, the investigation of the matter at The Hague demonstrated, as is submitted, that the doctrine could

1 For instance, the French treaty-right of fishing on the New- foundland coast (Treaty of Utrecht, 17 13) was renewed in express terms after every war between France and Great Britain.

viii INTRODUCTION

not be maintained, or at least could not be maintained to anything like the extent which has been claimed for it. The Mediatized States which formed the Germanic Confederation had mutual agreements re- lating to rights of way and the like which have been called servitudes, but this was a special case ; the States in those respects were really in the position of landowners rather than sovereigns and the rights were analogous to those of dominium rather than of imperium. Nor has this precedent ever become part of international law. The better opinion, therefore, seems to be that so-called servitudes created by treaty stand in no different position than other treaty rights, and are affected by war in no different way.

There is another class of treaties which it seems reasonable to hold suspended only during war and to revive on the termination of hostilities, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary ; such, for instance, are the treaties which provide for extradition or the mutual enforcement of judgements. These treaties are intended to be permanent, and depend on no personal considerations ; they are matters of mutual convenience. But the law cannot be said to be definite on this point.

Subject to these observations the general rule is that treaties are terminated by war. And indeed this is only natural. The more common kind of treaties regulating, for instance, the alliances of States, the economic relations of States, mutual facilities for com- merce— all these must obviously depend on the personal relations of the contracting parties, and, as has been already observed, those personal relations cannot fail to be affected by war. Trade with a friend is one thing, trade with a nation which has till lately been a bitter

INTRODUCTION ix

enemy is another thing ; the conditions are altered, and the rule that treaties generally are abrogated at the outbreak of war is based on good reason.

It has therefore been the common practice to make express provision in treaties of peace for the renewal or confirmation of such treaties existing before the war as the parties may agree to continue. In the absence of express provision it is of course still open to the parties to agree to the continuance in any other way, by diplomatic negotiation or by acquiescence. But in default of agreement, the general rule comes into force and treaties are held abrogated by war.

It will be observed that a large number of treaties discussed in this book fall within the class of executed contracts to which States other than belligerents are parties. But economic treaties between the belli- gerents are at an end, in default of provision to the contrary, and that gives to the opposing States the power of adjusting their trade relations in accordance with the altered conditions which will prevail after the war.

H. ERIE RICHARDS.

NOTE

IT is our pleasant duty to acknowledge the courtesy of the Foreign Office in affording us facilities for carrying out this work ; and also to thank Godfrey Hertslet, Esq., of the Foreign Office for allowing us to use some of his father's material. We desire, also, to acknowledge gratefully the action of H.M. Stationery Office in waiving the Government Copyright in respect of certain documents in Hertslet's Map of Europe by Treaty. For permission to use the material of the map of France in the last century from An Historical Atlas of Modern Europe (Oxford University Press) we are indebted to Messrs. C. Grant Robertson and J. G. Bartholomew. Finally, our gratitude is due to Professor Sir H. Erie Richards for suggestions and help

given to us at every stage.

A. H. O. R. B. M.

March, 1918.

CONTENTS

CHAP. PAGE

INTRODUCTION iii

I. ON THE CONCLUSION OF TREATIES IN ITS TECHNICAL ASPECT ......... i

II. THE RESTORATION OF EUROPE. . . . .16 Texts : The Treaty of Vienna (1815)— Epitome of Annexes ........ 37

III. THE INDEPENDENCE OF GREECE .... 99

Texts : The Treaty of London (1832)— The Protocol

of London (1830) — The Treaty of London (1863) . 1 16

IV. THE KINGDOM OF BELGIUM ..... 126

Texts : The Treaty of London (1839)— The Con- versations of 1906 . . . . . .141

V. TURKEY AND THE POWERS OF EUROPE . . .158 Texts : The Treaty of Paris (1856)— The Straits Convention (1856) — The Declaration of Paris (1856) 176

VI. THE DANISH DUCHIES . . . . . .186

Texts : The Treaty of London (1852) — The Treaty

of Vienna (1864) ...... 198

VII. THE UNION OF ITALY ...... 210

Texts : The Treaty of Zurich (1859)— The Treaty

of Vienna ( 1 866) ...... 226

VIII. AUSTRIA AND PRUSSIA ...... 241

Text : The Treaty of Prague (1866) . . .251

IX. THE GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBURG .... 256

Text : The Treaty of London (1867) • • • 260

X. THE FRANCO-GERMAN WAR 263

Texts : The Preliminaries of Versailles (1871) — The Treaty of Frankfort (1871) — The Constitution of

the German Empire ...... 274

*ii CONTENTS

CHAP. PAGE

XI. TURKEY, RUSSIA, AND THE BALKAN STATES . .312 Texts : The Treaty of London (1871) — The Treaty of Berlin (1878)— The Treaty of London (1913)— The Treaty of Bucharest (1913) .... 330

XII. THE TRIPLE ALLIANCE 367

Texts : The Treaty of Vienna (1879)— The Triple Alliance (i 903) 372

APPENDIX :

Text : The Treaty of San Stefano (1878) . . 377

MAPS

PAGE

Napoleon's Empire . . . . . . . .16

Partitions of Poland 20-1

Central and Eastern Europe, 1815 . . .. . .23

Greece, 1832-1913 .... . 101

The Frontiers of Belgium .... . 13*

The Union of Italy, 1859-70 . . . . .211

Prussia, 1815-71 . 245

France, 1814-1917 - 265

Aspirations of the Balkan States in 1912 . . . .315 Balkan States, 1878-1914 323

CHAPTER I

ON THE CONCLUSION OF TREATIES IN ITS TECHNICAL ASPECT

Forms of international contract — Full powers — Signature — Ratification — U.S.A. — Parliamentary authority — Ratification article — Permanent treaties — Terminable treaties — Interpre- tation — Tariff treaties — Extradition treaties.

USAGE has not prescribed any necessary form of inter- national contract.1

Treaties, Conventions, Agreements, Declarations, &c., are all assumed to have the same binding force,2 and their observance or repudiation are matters of conscience (or the want of it) on the part of the contracting parties, provided always that there are no considerations such as force majeure to prevent their fulfilment.

In order to conclude or negotiate the more formal of these instruments, that is to say, Treaties and in many instances Conventions or Agreements, it is the practice to provide the negotiator with a full power from his sovereign, or in the case of a republic from the head of the state, investing him with the necessary powers for accomplishing his mission.

Full powers, in the practice of Great Britain, are of two kinds, called, respectively, general and special full powers. An ambassador, for instance, appointed to reside at a foreign court, may be provided with a general full power covering

1 Hall's International Law, 4th ed., p. 343, § 109.

1 Treaties, and some Conventions, are concluded in the names of the Sovereigns of the respective countries. Other Conventions, and as a rule Agreements and Declarations, are concluded in the name of the respective ' Governments '. To this extent they are of a less formal nature.

2 THE CONCLUSION OF TREATIES

any negotiations with a view to the conclusion of a treaty which he may enter upon in the course of his residence at that court ; a special full power, on the other hand, is limited to a particular occasion which is indicated. Both are otherwise couched in identical terms to the following effect :

George, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India. To all and singular to whom these Presents shall come, Greeting !

Whereas, for the better treating of and arranging any matters [certain matters] which are now in discussion or which may come into discussion between Us and . . . We have judged it expedient to invest a fit person with Full Power to conduct negotiations [to conduct the said discussion] on Our part : Know ye, therefore, that'We, reposing especial Trust and Confidence in the Wisdom, Loyalty, Diligence, and Cir- cumspection of Our [name, style and title of Plenipotentiary] , have named, made, constituted and appointed, as we do by these Presents name, make, constitute and appoint him Our undoubted Commissioner, Procurator and Plenipoten- tiary : Giving to him all manner of Power and Authority to treat, adjust and conclude with such Minister or Ministers as may be vested with similar Power and Authority on the part of ... any Treaty, Convention or Agreement between Us and . . . [any Treaty, Convention or Agreement that may tend to the attainment of the above-mentioned end] and to sign for Us and in Our name, everything so agreed upon and concluded, and to do and transact all such other matters as may appertain thereto, in as ample manner and form, and with, equal force and efficacy, as We Ourselves could do, if personally present : Engaging and Promising, upon Our Royal Word, that whatever things shall be so transacted and concluded by Our said Commissioner, Procurator, and Plenipotentiary, shall, subject if necessary to Our Ratification, be agreed to, acknowledged and ac- cepted by Us in the fullest manner, and that We will never suffer, either in the whole or in part, any person whatso- ever to infringe the same, or act contrary thereto, as far as it lies in Our power.

In witness whereof We have caused the Great Seal of

SIGNATURE 3

Our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to be affixed to these Presents, which We have signed with Our Royal Hand.

Given at Our Court of ... the . . . day of ... in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and . . . and in the . . . Year of Our Reign.

The words printed in italics between square brackets are those of the special full power.

The document bears the Royal sign manual.

Before entering upon negotiations, the Plenipotentiaries produce to each other their respective full powers. Every treaty, after reciting in its preamble its object and the names of the Plenipotentiaries, goes on to say, ' Who, after having communicated to each other their respective Full Powers, found in good and due form, have agreed upon the following articles. . . .'

The treaty between two states which results from the negotiations thus authorized, is signed in duplicate by the respective Plenipotentiaries, and in the language of each of them in parallel columns. In a treaty between, say, Great Britain and France, the signature of the British Plenipotentiary comes first in the copy to be retained by the British Government, and that of the French Plenipo- tentiary last. Conversely, in the copy to be retained by the French Government the signature of the French Plenipo- tentiary comes first and that of the British Plenipotentiary last. Similarly, in the preamble of the English copy, the name of the English monarch is mentioned first, and in that of the French copy the name of the President of the French Republic.

On the conclusion of the treaty, the English copy is sent home for preservation amongst the British official archives, and the ratification of the Sovereign is prepared in the following form :

George, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions

B 2

4 THE CONCLUSION OF TREATIES

beyond the seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India. To all and singular to whom these Presents shall come, Greeting !

Whereas a [Treaty or as the case may be] between Us and . . . was concluded and signed at ... on the . . . day of ... in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and ... by the Plenipotentiaries of Us and of ... duly and respectively authorized for that purpose, which [Treaty] is word for word as follows : — [here follows a copy of the Treaty from beginning to end in both texts, as in the original, including the signatures and seals (L. S.) l also in copy],

We, having seen and considered the [Treaty] aforesaid, have approved, accepted and confirmed the same in all and every one of its Articles and Clauses, as We do by these Presents approve, accept, confirm and ratify it for Our- selves, Our Heirs and Successors ; engaging and promising upon Our Royal Word that We will sincerely and faithfully perform and observe all and singular the things which are contained and expressed in the [Treaty] aforesaid, and that We will never suffer the same to be violated by any one, or transgressed in any manner, as far as it lies in Our power. For the greater testimony and validity of all which We have caused the Great Seal of Our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to be affixed to these Presents, which We have signed with Our Royal Hand.

Given at Our Court of ... the . . . day of ... in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and . . . and in the . . . year of Our Reign. [Here follows the Royal signature.]

This ratification is then sent to the British representative at the Court of the other signatory Power, to be exchanged against a similar document issuing from the latter, which is then sent home to be preserved amongst the official

1 The letters L. S., enclosed in a circle, and placed on the left of the copy of a signature to a treaty or other document, indicate the place where the seal is affixed in the original document (Locus sigilli). It is usual in treaties occupying more than one folio page to connect the several pages together with a narrow ribbon of the national colours. The ends of the ribbons are then collected together on the last page of the document opposite the signatures, and the seals of the different Plenipotentiaries are impressed in wax upon them as a security against fraudulent abstraction of any of the pages.

RATIFICATION 5

archives. It is customary for the representative in question and the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the other signatory Power to sign a protocol recording the fact that the ex- change of the ratifications has been duly effected.

In the case of a general treaty between several Powers, the ratifications are sometimes deposited in the archives of the country in which the treaty is signed, as, for instance, those of the London Treaty of March 10, 1883, respecting the navigation of the Danube ; those of the General Act of Brussels of July 2, 1890, respecting the African Slave Trade, &c. : thus the multiplication of ratifications is avoided.

The practice of the United States differs in one respect from the procedure above indicated. According to the constitution of that country, the treaty-making power is vested in the President, subject to the approval of two- thirds of the Senate, and there are instances on record in which the Senate has introduced amendments into a treaty as a condition of its acceptance. If such amend- ments are not accepted by the other party to the treaty, the treaty remains inoperative, as in the case of the ' Clarendon- Dallas ' Treaty of October 17, 1856, relating to Central America,1 or the Treaty of Versailles, 1919.

In the United States a treaty duly ratified by the Senate, and entering into force, becomes ipso facto a portion of the law of the land. This is not so in England, and care has therefore to be taken in negotiating a treaty that its stipulations are not antagonistic to the law, or if they are so, that the law be amended so that it shall agree with the

1 Stale Papers, vol. xlvii, p. 677. See also United States Rati- fication with Amendments on p. 687 of the same volume. The question whether it would be possible for the Queen to ratify an engagement which had not been signed by a Plenipotentiary on the part of Her Majesty, was incidentally raised by Lord Clarendon on the receipt of the United States Ratification with Amendments ; but as the Amendments were not accepted by Great Britain, this question did not assume a concrete form, but remained an open problem (see p. 692 of the same volume).

6 THE CONCLUSION OF TREATIES

treaty; otherwise a government may find itself in the position of being bound towards a foreign country to give effect to stipulations which the law of the land forbids it to carry out. In this connexion it may be mentioned that a stipulation involving a money payment by England has been thus guardedly worded, ' Her Majesty undertakes to recommend to Her Parliament to vote a sum of money,' or words to that effect. Another case in point is that of Heligoland. Article XII of the Anglo-German Agreement of July i, 1890, says : ' Subject to the Assent of the British Parliament, the Sovereignty over the Island of Heligoland, together with its dependencies, is ceded by Her Britannic Majesty to His Majesty the Emperor of Germany.' * It has been held in some quarters that no such assent was necessary, and that it constituted a surrender of the Queen's Prerogative. Be that as it may, an Act of Par- liament was passed on August 4, 1890, assenting to the carrying out of this Agreement.2 The Commercial Treaty of 1860 with France also contained many undertakings to recommend to Parliament the reduction of duties agreed to, subject to Parliament's assent. Thus no breach of the treaty would result from any failure on the part of the Parliament to comply with the recommendation.

In the case of general treaties between several Powers, concluded as a rule in the French language, the Plenipo- tentiaries sign in alphabetical order of countries : thus the German Plenipotentiary would sign under the letter A (Allemagne) ; those of Spain and the United States under the letter E (Espagne, Etats-Unis). This principle was adopted in the Vienna Congress Treaty of 1815. Never- theless, the British copy of the General Act of Brussels of 1890 (relating to the African Slave Trade) was signed first by the British Plenipotentiaries, the others following in the alphabetical order of their countries.

1 State Papers, vol. Ixxxii, p. 46.

* 53 & 54 Vic. caP- 32- State Papers, vol. Ixxxii, p. 668.

RATIFICATION ARTICLE 7

The Treaty of Berlin, I878,1 presents another variation of this principle. In the preamble of the British copy, Great Britain is mentioned first, then France, then the remainder in their alphabetical order. In signing, Great Britain came first, then Turkey, then the others in alpha- betical order. No absolute rule is followed. With regard to the now customary use of the French language in general treaties between several Powers, it is to be observed that every country has strictly the right to require that its own version of a treaty shall be expressed in its own language. In departing from this custom, for the sake of convenience, in the Vienna Congress Treaty of 1815, it was expressly laid down in Article CXX of that instrument that the use of the French language therein should not be construed into a precedent for the future ; that every Power, therefore, reserved to itself the adoption in future negotiations and conventions of the language it has hereto- fore employed in its diplomatic relations ; and that that treaty should not be cited as a precedent contrary to the established practice.

All treaties and conventions contain, or should contain, a ratification article. Although its absence is no bar to ratification, it sets at rest all doubt as to the in- tention.2 There are instances in which the less formal ' Agreement ' has received ratification, though unprovided with a stipulation requiring it.

The ratification article is generally the last one in the treaty, and is couched in terms to the following effect : ' The present Treaty [Convention] shall be ratified and the Ratifications shall be exchanged at ... within . . . weeks, or sooner if possible.' Occasionally no limit of time is stated, the words ' as soon as possible ' being employed. It has sometimes happened that when the exchange of

1 State Papers, vol. Ixix, p. 749.

1 Of course, a treaty such as the ' Holy Alliance ', which wa3 signed by the Sovereigns themselves, does not require ratification.

3 THE CONCLUSION OF TREATIES

ratifications has been delayed beyond the stipulated time, an agreement has been signed extending that time. On other occasions of the same kind the exchange has taken place notwithstanding the expiration of the period, and nothing said about it.

In modern times Treaties of Commerce have almost invariably been made terminable at the end of a certain specified time, subject to one of the parties thereto giving notice to the other of an intention to terminate it. Such a notice is often referred to as a ' Denunciation ' of the treaty.

Article 25 of the Anglo-Belgian Treaty of Commerce and Navigation of July 23, I862,1 declares that ' The present Treaty shall continue in force for ten years dating from the tenth day after the exchange of the Ratifications. In case neither of the two Contracting Parties should have notified, twelve months before the end of the said period, its intention to terminate the Treaty, it shall remain in force until the expiration of a year dating from the day on which either of the High Contracting Parties shall have given notice for its termination.' An Article similar in its terms is now introduced generally into Treaties of Commerce.

In denouncing a treaty under the powers conferred by a stipulation of the above purport, no particular form or procedure is laid down. In the case of the Belgian Treaty of 1862, and of that with the Zollverein of May 30, 1865, both of which were denounced by Great Britain on July 28, 1897, the following procedure was adopted : On that date the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Lord Salisbury, addressed a dispatch to the British Minister at Brussels in the following terms : ' I have to request that you will at once give notice of the intention of Her Majesty's Govern- ment to terminate the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between Great Britain and Belgium signed on the 23rd July, 1862. In virtue of the stipulations contained in Article XXV, the Treaty will accordingly terminate upon the expiration 1 State Rapers, vol. lii, p. 8.

of a year dating from the day upon which you give the notice.'1 An exactly similar dispatch (mutatis mutandis) was addressed on the same day to the British Ambassador at Berlin denouncing the Zollverein Treaty of 1865. The reason for these denunciations, as explained in subsequent correspondence, was that these two treaties contained an unusual stipulation under which Belgian and German merchandise, respectively, was entitled to admission to British Colonies on the same terms as merchandise from Great Britain, the mother country. This treatment ex- tended, under the operation of the ' most favoured nation ' Article, to all other countries having commercial treaties with Great Britain. Canada was at that moment elaborat- ing a law granting preferential treatment to the merchandise of the United Kingdom, in which foreign nations should not participate, and it became necessary, therefore, to get rid of the two obnoxious treaties which, as long as they continued in force, would entitle all foreign countries to participate in advantages intended for Great Britain only, thus making preferential treatment of the mother country impossible. The British representatives at Brussels and Berlin gave notice to the respective Governments, as instructed, and the two treaties lapsed in due course.

It is not unusual, and it is certainly desirable, to notify in the official press that a foreign country has denounced a treaty. In the instance quoted above, the Belgian Government announced the British denunciation of their treaty in the Moniteur Beige of August i, 1897. Again, when the Hawaiian Government, in 1878, denounced certain Articles of their Treaty with Great Britain of July 10, 1851, a notice announcing the fact was published in the London Gazette of February 19, 1878.2 When, in 1896, the Dominican Republic denounced their Treaty of March 6, 1850, by a Note from their Minister of Foreign Affairs to

1 Slate Papers, vol. Ixxxvi, p. 324. 1 Ibid., vol. Ixix, p. 616.

io THE CONCLUSION OF TREATIES

the British Secretary of State, the fact was announced in the London Gazette of August 21, i8g6,1 and similarly in other cases the same course has been followed.

Speaking generally, political treaties are of a permanent character, and are not made subject to termination, unless their nature is such as to render that course desirable or obvious ; but there are other treaties besides those for regulating commercial intercourse, which are as a rule terminable on denunciation, for instance, Extradition Treaties and others treating of a particular subject. Article XI of the Treaty of August 9, 1842, between Great Britain and the United States, declares that the tenth Article (which deals with the Extradition of fugitive criminals) 'shall continue in force until one or the other of the parties shall signify its wish to terminate it, and no longer '.2 The Extradition Treaty between Great Britain and Serbia of November 23, 1901, Article i8,3 provided that ' The present Treaty . . . may be terminated by either of the High Contracting Parties at any time on giving to the other six months' notice of its intention to do so ' ; that between Great Britain and Spain of June 4, 1878, contained a similar stipulation (Article 17).* Many other instances might be quoted, such as the Agreement with Denmark of June 21, 1881, respecting merchant seamen deserters,5 terminable on one year's notice ; a similar Agreement of July 25, 1883, respecting relief of distressed seamen,6 also terminable on one year's notice ; Agreement with Portugal respecting Money Orders, January 17, 1883,' terminable on six months' notice, &c.

A treaty which is not, in virtue of its stipulations, ter- minable in the manner described, can in strictness be terminated only by mutual agreement between the con- tracting parties, or by the occurrence of a war between

1 State Papers, vol. Ixxxviii, p. 214.

* Ibid., vol. xxx, p. 366. 3 Ibid., vol. xcii, p. 46. 4 Ibid., vol. Ixix, p. 12. 5 Ibid., vol. Ixxii, p. 6.

• Ibid., vol. Ixxiv, p. 77. 7 Ibid., vol. Ixxiv, p. 5.

TERMINABLE TREATIES II

them, war being considered, with certain exceptions, as having the effect of abrogating treaties, or by the advent of special circumstances incompatible with its continued observance. These arc matters which need not here be entered into : it will be sufficient to note one well-known instance in which an abrogation without consent has been attempted, namely, in the case of the Black Sea Articles of the Treaty of Paris of 1856, regarding which the Russian Government announced, in 1870, that it held itself to be emancipated. Great Britain replied that it had always been held that the right of releasing a party to a treaty belonged only to the Governments which had been parties to the original instrument. Russia's bare announcement of withdrawal, if acquiesced in, would result in the entire destruction of treaties in their essence. Russia thereupon abandoned the position she had taken up, and a conference was held in London at which the articles objected to were amended by common consent, and a Declaration was at the same time signed by the Powers (including Russia) on January 17, 1871, recognizing ' that it is an essential principle of the Law of Nations that no Power can liberate itself from the engagements of a Treaty, nor modify the stipulations thereof, unless with the consent of the Con- tracting Powers by means of an amicable arrangement '.* The Treaty for the revision of the Black Sea Articles of the Treaty of 1856 was signed on March 13, i87i.2 Russia, therefore, gained her ends, or some of them, while the ' essential principle of the Law of Nations ' was vindicated by the assent of the Powers. The annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina by Austria, on October 8, 1908, was in effect a repudiation of Article XXV of the Treaty of Berlin, July 13, 1878, although in her circular to the Powers announcing the annexation, the Austrian Government simply ignored the existence of the Treaty.

1 Stale Papers, vol. Ixi, p. 1198. * Ibid., vol. Ixi, p. 7.

12 THE CONCLUSION OF TREATIES

In order to avoid disputes respecting the true interpre- tation of a treaty when signed in more than one language, it has occasionally been agreed that in the event of discre- pancy between the different ' texts ', one or other of them shall be held to convey the intentions of the negotiators. Thus, in the Treaty of Peace between Japan and Russia signed at Portsmouth (United States) on September 5, 1 905,* it was agreed, in Article XV, as follows : ' The present Treaty shall be signed in duplicate, in both the English and French languages. The texts are in absolute conformity, but in case of discrepancy in interpretation, the French text shall prevail.'

Some commercial treaties are accompanied by a tariff of import and export duties to be charged on goods by the respective contracting parties. Others are not accompanied by any tariff, and depend mainly on the ' most favoured nation ' articles. A good example of a tariff treaty is that of 1860 between Great Britain and France,2 generally associated with the name of Richard Cobden, who was one of the Plenipotentiaries negotiating it. This treaty re- mained in force until May 15, 1882, when it was replaced by the Convention for the regulation of Commercial and Maritime Relations signed at Paris on February 28, 1882, which came into operation on May 16. The Treaty of January 23, 1860, contained an enumeration of articles upon which an ad valorem duty should be charged, and the Supplementary Conventions of October 12, i86o,3 and November 16, 1860,* were accompanied by full tariffs of import duties on British goods imported into France. The changes in the duties arranged for in the Treaty of January 23 were made subject to the consent of the British Parliament.

The tariffs of 1860 came to an end by the operation of the Convention of 1882, which declared that the import

1 State Papers, vol xcviii, p. 735. * Ibid., vol. 1, p. 13.

* Ibid., vol. 1, p. 31. * Ibid., vol. 1, p. 48.

TARIFF TREATIES 13

duties should thenceforth be regulated by the internal legislation of the two countries, while in all other matters ' most favoured nation treatment ' was mutually guaran- teed. The Convention also dealt with the coasting trade, fisheries, taxes, residence, shipping, patterns, trade marks, and other kindred subjects, granting either ' most favoured nation ' or ' national ' treatment.

Some of these matters, as a rule, form the subject of separate treaties or agreements. Extradition, for ex- ample, is almost always treated separately. An Extra- dition Treaty contains a list of crimes, the commission of any of which will entail the surrender of the criminal, and it is usual to insert an article in such a treaty to the effect that the contracting parties reserve to themselves the right to refuse to surrender their own nationals : some- times they declare categorically that they will not surrender them.

The question of capital punishment (in the case of murder) has sometimes proved an impediment to the con- clusion of an Extradition Treaty. Portugal is a case in point, but in the treaty between Great Britain and that country of October 17, I8Q2,1 the difficulty was got over by the acceptance by Great Britain of a reservation in Article II to the following effect : ' The Portuguese Government will not deliver up any person either guilty or accused of any crime punishable with death.' This treaty, so far as Great Britain was concerned, was therefore in- complete, because Portugal could retrieve her murderers from Great Britain, while the latter enjoyed no reciprocity in this respect. However, the disadvantages were no doubt deemed to be overbalanced by the advantage of possessing a workable arrangement in respect of minor crimes, and the treaty, though one-sided, was concluded.

It may be useful to indicate in a few words the customary manner of proceeding on the meeting of a Congress or a 1 Stale Papers, vol. Ixxxiv, p 83.

14 THE CONCLUSION OF TREATIES

Conference to discuss international questions with a view to concluding a treaty for their settlement.

Such meetings, when taking place in London, are almost invariably held at the Foreign Office,1 and a similar practice is no doubt followed at other capitals where structural arrangements permit, the respective Ministries for Foreign Affairs being the most convenient for purposes of reference to international documents.

The Paris Conferences in 1856 on the conclusion of the Crimean War, for instance, were held at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. On that occasion, at the first meeting on February 25, the Austrian Plenipotentiary opened the proceedings by proposing that the Presidency of the Conference should be conferred upon Count Walewski, the first French Plenipotentiary, not only, he said, because precedents pointed to this course, but also because it constituted a mark of respect towards the Sovereign whose hospitality the Representatives of Europe were at that moment enjoying. This proposal having been unanimously agreed to, Count Walewski, after thanking the Plenipo- tentiaries for the honour conferred upon him, proposed to confide the editing of the protocols of the meetings to M. Benedetti, the Director of the political affairs of the French Foreign Office, who was thereupon introduced. The Official occupying this post is called the ' Protocolist '. The Plenipotentiaries then proceeded to the verification of their respective full powers, after which they undertook to preserve absolute secrecy as to their proceedings in Conference. Their first business was to declare an armistice between the late belligerents for the duration of the Conference.2

Take, again, the London Conferences of 1867 (held at the Foreign Office) on the question of the Grand Duchy

1 The Conference of London, however, at the conclusion of the First Balkan War, 1913, was held at the Palace of St. James. * State Papers, vol. xlvi, p. 63.

PROCEDURE AT CONFERENCES 15

of Luxemburg. At the first meeting the Austrian Plenipo- tentiary proposed that Lord Stanley, the English Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, should be invited to assume the Presidency of the Conference. Lord Stanley then proposed Mr. Julian Fane, British Secretary of Embassy at Paris, as the Protocolist, and he was introduced accordingly. Then came the verification of the full powers.1

The same course with little variation was adopted at the London Conference of 1883 respecting the navigation of the Danube. The German Plenipotentiary at the first meeting on February 8 proposed Earl Granville, British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, for the Presidency, and the latter proposed Mr. J. A. Crowe of the Consular and Diplomatic Services, as Secretary 2 (no doubt intended as a synonymous term with Protocolist).

It is to be presumed that these appointments of Officers are decided by previous understanding amongst the Pleni- potentiaries, hence that unanimity which is a feature of the plenary proceedings in this connexion.

Concerning the order of discussions, a similar procedure may be to some extent adopted. For the rest, a perusal of a variety of Protocols of Conferences (or Minutes of Meetings, as they would be called in less important unofficial circumstances) leads to an impression that discussions are there conducted much on the lines of a Committee of the House of Commons when considering a Bill before the House. Members are not limited to one speech apiece, but rise from time to time to give voice to their ideas in words many or few, as the spirit moves them or the complaisance of their audience can tolerate.

1 State Papers, vol. Ix, p. 497. 2 Ibid., vol. Ixxiv, p. 1231.

CHAPTER II THE RESTORATION OF EUROPE

The French Revolution — The Revolutionary Wars — The First Peace of Paris — Speech of the Prince Regent — Congress of Vienna — The Final Act — The Balance of Power — Poland — France — Alexander I — The Peace of Ghent — Alliance of Three States — Italy — Colonies — Navigation of Rivers — Slave trade — Duration of Vienna Settlement — Holy Alliance — Great Britain — and the Holy Alliance — Second Peace of Paris.

Texts : The Treaty of Vienna (1815) — Epitome of Annexes.

THE Congress of the European Powers which assembled at Vienna in the year 1814 was an indirect outcome of the French Revolution of the previous century, owing to the devastating wars to which that event gave rise.

The French Revolution is reckoned to have commenced with the destruction of the Bastille in July 1789. For some time previously the country, and in particular the capital, had been in a state of unrest owing, in great measure, to the unequal taxation of the people, and the privileges enjoyed in this and other respects by the aristo- cracy and clergy. Matters having been brought to a head, the condition of affairs rapidly went from bad to worse. The King, Louis XVI, professed, and no doubt entertained, the best intentions for ameliorating the condition of the people, though there were others who were averse from all concessions, while on the side of the people there were many leaders who from various motives were bent upon pushing matters to a crisis. The intrigues of the democratic faction were prosecuted with success. Men and women of the lowest class were instigated to go to Versailles to demand bread. Riots ensued. The King submitted to a demand that he should return to Paris,

1903

iS CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815

where in due course he virtually became a prisoner. He escaped with the royal family in 1791, but was recaptured at Varennes and taken back to the capital, where, though still ostensibly King, he was entirely in the hands of the Assembly. Some pourparlers on behalf of the King had taken place with certain Continental Powers (Austria, Spain, and others) for military co-operation together with a royalist army, with a view to the restoration of tranquillity in France. The original scheme did not mature, but never- theless a coalition of the Powers against France was effected in 1792, and the great French War was inaugurated by the invasion of France by Austrian and Prussian troops. They were repulsed by the Revolutionary Armies : the Province of Flanders was seized as well as all the Netherland Pro- vinces except Luxemburg. Successful operations were also conducted by the Revolutionary General Custine in Ger- many. Savoy was also acquired by the French. In Sep- tember 1792 the French Republic was proclaimed.

The success of Custine in Germany encouraged the Assembly to aim at further conquests, but its immediate attention was chiefly devoted to the process against the deposed representative of the House of Bourbon. It was proposed that he should be tried for his offences against the State. Robespierre and others denied the necessity of a trial, alleging that his criminality was undoubted, and that immediate condemnation was the proper treatment for a tyrant. However, the Girondist faction insisted on a previous inquiry, although they admitted his guilt. Louis was accordingly tried for treason against the nation, was condemned to death; and was executed on January 21, 1793. The Queen was beheaded in October of the same year.

It is easy to understand that the desperate condition of affairs in France, the anarchy, the massacres, and the outrages committed in the name of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, alarmed and disconcerted the monarchs and

CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815 19

governments of neighbouring States, who feared lest the contagion should spread within their own borders. A coalition of the Powers against France was therefore not to be wondered at. Great Britain concluded treaties of subsidy and alliance against France with several of the European Powers,1 and hostilities became general. France declared war against England in 1793, and with the ex- ception of an interlude of peace of. one year which followed on the signature of the Treaty of Amiens in 1802, the war continued until the year 1814. Its character underwent some change as time went on. The appearance of Napoleon upon the scene, his elevation to the post of First Consul in 1799 and to the position of Emperor in 1804, his con- quests and annexations of various territories, his ambition to become the arbiter of the affairs of Europe, as he was certainly the disturber of its peace, resulted finally in an alliance of the Powers against himself personally. An invasion of France took place, Paris was surrendered to the Allies on March 31, 1814, the Bourbon dynasty was restored in the person of Louis XVIII (Louis XVII had died a prisoner in France in June 1795, never having ascended the throne), and Napoleon was deported to the Island of Elba, where he arrived on May 4, 1814, Louis having entered Paris on the previous day. It was then that the ' First Peace of Paris ' was negotiated between Louis XVIII and the Allies.

This treaty, to which Great Britain, Austria, Portugal, Prussia, Russia, Spain, Sweden, and France were parties, was signed at Paris on May 30, i8i4.2

The preamble to the British version (as laid before Parliament) declared that His Majesty the King of the

1 The subsidy treaties are in G. F. von Martens, Nouveau Rcctieil de Traitis, vols. v, vii, and Supplemens, vol. v.

1 Separate treaties in identical terms were, in fact, concluded between France and each of the above-named Allied Powers, all dated May 30, 1814, with the exception of that with Spain, which was dated July 20. The whole, together, constitute ' The Treaty of Paris ', and are to be regarded as one document.

C 2

22 CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and his Allies, on the one part, and His Majesty the King of France and of Navarre, on the other part, animated by an equal desire to terminate the long agitations of Europe and the sufferings of mankind, by a permanent peace, founded upon a just repartition of force between its States, and containing in its stipulations the pledge of its durability, &c., had named Plenipotentiaries to sign a treaty of peace and amity. The British Plenipotentiaries were Lord Castle- reagh, Lord Aberdeen, Lord Cathcart, and Sir Charles Stewart, all of whom, with the French Plenipotentiary, the Prince de B£neVent, signed the British copy of the treaty.1

Article I contained the usual peace and friendship stipu- lation. Article II declared that the limits of France (with certain modifications) should be the same as they existed on January i, 1792. Article III particularized these limits as modified. Article IV dealt with the road connecting Geneva with other parts of Swiss territory. Article V stipulated for the free navigation of the Rhine. Article VI provided for an increase of territory for Holland, for the independence of the States of Germany and the Government of Switzerland and Italy. Article VII declared that Malta should belong in full sovereignty to His Britannic Majesty. Articles VIII to XI provided for the restoration of certain colonies to France, and the cession of others to Great Britain, &c. By Article XII Great Britain guaranteed most favoured nation treatment in India to French subjects and commerce, and France undertook to erect no fortifi- cations on her possessions on the continent of India. Article XIII replaced French fishery rights in Newfound- land on the footing of 1792. Article XV dealt with the disposal of the arsenals and ships of war, &c., found in the ports of the territories to be evacuated by France, and further declared Antwerp to be solely a commercial port. 1 Stale Papers, vol. i, p. 151.

24 CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815

Article XVI secured the non-molestation of individuals for action taken during the war, and Article XVII provided that inhabitants of ceded territories should be at liberty, if they thought fit, to retire to other countries within a period of six years. By Article XVIII the Allied Govern- ments renounced all pecuniary claims on France against a similar renunciation by France. By Article XIX France undertook to liquidate all debts owing by her beyond her own territories, and Article XX provided for the execution by commissioners of the stipulations of the two preceding Articles. Articles XXI to XXXI had reference to debts, claims of individuals, Caisses d'Amortissement, pensions, abolition of the Droits d'Aubaine, restoration of documents belonging to ceded countries, &c.

Article XXXII ran as follows : ' All the Powers engaged on either side in the present war shall, within the space of two months, send Plenipotentiaries to Vienna for the purpose of regulating, in General Congress, the arrange- ments which are to complete the provisions of the present Treaty.'

Article XXXIII contained the usual ratification clause.

Such was the purport of the treaty known as the First Peace of Paris, to which were added some additional and secret articles touching the Austrian possessions in Italy, the territories of Sardinia, the organization of Switzerland, the acquisition of territory by Holland, the abolition of the slave trade,1 prisoners of war, claims, the Duchy of Warsaw, and kindred subjects.

1 The additional Article on the subject of the slave trade runs as follows : ' His Most Christian Majesty concurring without reserve in the sentiments of His Britannic Majesty with respect to a description of traffic repugnant to the principles of natural justice and of the enlightened age in which we live, engages to unite all his efforts to those of His Britannic Majesty at the approaching Congress to induce all the powers of Christendom to decree the abolition of the Slave Trade, so that the said trade shall cease universally, as it shall cease definitively, under any circumstances, on the part of the French Government in the course of five years ; and that during the said period no Slave Merchant shall import or sell Slaves except

CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815 25

The Prince Regent of Great Britain, in his speech closing Parliament on July 30, I8I4,1 said :

I have the satisfaction of contemplating the full accom- plishment of all those objects for which the war was either undertaken or continued ; and the unexampled exertions of this country, combined with those of His Majesty's Allies, have succeeded in effecting the deliverance of Europe from the most galling and oppressive tyranny under which it has ever laboured. The restoration of so many of the ancient and legitimate Governments of the Continent affords the best prospect of the permanence of that Peace which, in conjunction with His Majesty's Allies, I have concluded : and you may rely on my efforts being directed at the approaching Congress to complete the settle- ment of Europe which has been already so auspiciously begun ; and to promote, upon principles of justice and impartiality, all those measures which may appear best calculated to secure the tranquillity and happiness of all the nations engaged in the late war.

The General Congress stipulated for in Article XXXII of the Treaty of Paris quoted above met accordingly at Vienna in September 1814, and concluded its labours on June 19, 1815, the General Treaty resulting therefrom being dated June 9, 1815. The British Plenipotentiaries were Lord Castlereagh, the Duke of Wellington, Lords Clancarty, Cathcart, and Stewart. Only the three latter signed the Treaty on behalf of Great Britain, the two former having been previously recalled from Vienna, the Duke of Welling- ton in order to take command of the army in the Nether- lands to oppose Napoleon, who having escaped from Elba in March, was once more entering upon an armed resistance to the Allies. The ' Hundred Days ' culminated in Napo- leon's defeat at Waterloo on June 18, 1815, and his eventual deportation to St. Helena as a prisoner, where he died in

in the Colonies of the State of which he is a subject.' See also De- claration of February 8, 1815 (Annex XV to the Congress Treaty of Vienna), Slate Papers, vol. iii, p. 971. See also Resolutions signed at Verona, November 28, 1822, State Papers, vol. x, p. 109. 1 Slate Papers, vol. i, p. n.

26 CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815

1821. Meanwhile, the Treaty of the Congress of Vienna1 was signed by the Plenipotentiaries then remaining at Vienna, and Louis XVIII, reinstated on the throne, re- turned to Paris.

The Congress Treaty (generally known as the Final Act of the Vienna Congress) dealt with many matters concerned with the ' just repartition of force amongst the States of Europe ' alluded to in the Preamble of the Treaty of Paris of May 30, 1814. Some of these matters were not specific- ally treated of in the last-named treaty, but constituted the ' arrangements which were to complete ' its provisions. The Powers represented at the Vienna Congress were Great Britain, Austria, France, Portugal, Prussia, Russia, Spain, and Sweden. Spain did not sign the treaty, but she acceded to it by an Act dated June 7, 1817.

The Congress Treaty was accompanied by seventeen annexes which really formed part of the principal treaty. An epitome of them, indicating their nature and contents, will be found at the end of the treaty (page 95). Some of them are embodied verbatim or in substance in the treaty. They are enumerated in Article CXVIII.

The task virtually imposed upon the Powers assembled in Congress at Vienna, in pursuance of the provisions of the First Peace of Paris, was the reconstruction of Europe with a view mainly to the re-establishment of the ' Balance of Power ' which, in so far as it had ever existed, had been overthrown by the Napoleonic wars. In the elaboration of this idea it was inevitable that due weight should be given to considerations of expediency and compromise. The Congress had, in fact, to reconstruct a Continent which had undergone many changes during a period of twenty years. In the process of reconstruction the principle of legitimism was adopted by the Congress, and this served to eliminate certain discordant elements. Still Poland and Saxony and German nationalism continued to present 1 State Papers, vol. ii, p. 3.

CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815 27

difficulties. Russia sought compensation in Poland in return for her sacrifices ; Prussia looked for compensa- tion from Saxony ; Austria, on the other hand, was dis- inclined to concede to Prussia too great a preponderance in Germany ; while England and France were jealous of the aggrandizement of Russia. In the end a compromise was effected, each party relinquishing a portion of its claims.

The doctrine of expediency and compromise is further illustrated by Article I of the Congress Treaty, which deals with Poland, and was said to have emanated directly from the Emperor Alexander I of Russia. In a correspondence between Great Britain and Russia in 1863, on the existing rebellion in Poland and the failure of Russia to carry out the promised reforms in that country, there appears a dispatch from Earl Russell to the British Ambassador at the Court of the Tsar alluding to the course adopted at the Congress in the matter. ' In 1815,' his Lordship wrote, ' Great Britain, Austria, France, and Prussia would have preferred to the arrangement finally made, a restoration of the ancient Kingdom of Poland as it existed prior to the first partition of 1772, or even the establishment of a new independent Kingdom of Poland, with the same limits as the present Kingdom. The great army which the Emperor Alexander then had in Poland, the important services which Russia had rendered to the Alliance, and, above all, a fear of the renewal of war in Europe, combined to make Great Britain, Austria, and Prussia accept the arrangement proposed by the Emperor Alexander, although it was, in their eyes, of the three arrangements in contemplation the one least likely to produce permanent peace and security in Europe.' l

The fear of a renewal of war was by no means unwar- ranted. The conflicting interests of the principal Powers manifested themselves in the preliminary discussions which took place prior to the meeting of the full Congress. 1 State Papers, vol. liii, p. 914.

28 CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815

The four Powers, Great Britain, Austria, Prussia, and Russia, had, prior to the negotiation of the Peace of Paris of 1814, come to an agreement regarding certain points connected with the reconstruction of Europe, but regarding others, e. g. Poland, Prussia, and Saxony, their views were antagonistic. This seems to have been the reason for the course then adopted, namely to confine the negotiations at Paris to matters in which France was more particularly concerned, and to which she must agree in advance, rele- gating to a future Congress the consideration of those which promised to give rise to controversy. They could not exclude France from all participation in the Congress, but they sought to contrive a state of things under which the French Plenipotentiary should proceed to Vienna with his pen and the seal of his arms ready to affix his signature at the foot of an agreement already elaborated by the four Powers before his arrival.

Preliminary conferences took place at Vienna, to which Talleyrand, overcoming the opposition of the ' Allies ', succeeded in gaining admittance ; but much difficulty was experienced in relation to Poland. The Emperor Alexander offered Saxony to Prussia, Venice to Austria, but was for a long time obstinate on the subject of Poland, intimating on one occasion that he had 200,000 men in the Duchy of Warsaw, and inviting the Powers to turn him out. The date for the meeting of the plenary Congress was again and again postponed. People became anxious, asking whether Europe was about to recommence a war for the division of the spoils of Napoleon. In this state of affairs it was agreed (October 30, 1814) that although questions of importance were still pending, there was nothing to prevent the verification of the Full Powers of the Plenipotentiaries being entered on at once. This was done, and committees were appointed for the consideration of the less contro- versial of the subjects under discussion, one of them for German affairs in which Austria, Prussia, Bavaria, Hanover,

CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815 29

and Wurtemberg were represented, and another for the affairs of Switzerland in which Great Britain, Austria, Prussia, and Russia took part.

The Congress met to arrange for the verification of the Full Powers on October 30, iSi.4.1

In the meantime the Emperor Alexander had receded somewhat from the position previously taken up by him, partly owing to the tenacity-of Prussia, who argued that she had been promised not only reinstatement but an augmentation of territory. She suggested that Saxony might, for instance, be transferred to a portion of the vacant country on the left bank of the Rhine, with Bonn as the capital and the Moselle as the boundary, whilst she, Prussia, should take the territory bordering on the French frontier. Alexander, not seeing his way to the acquisition of the whole of the Duchy of Warsaw, and becoming aware that he must give up his demand for the cession of Galicia by Austria, modified his views rather than risk a renewal of war. He agreed that Prussia should take part of Saxony and the province of Posen, giving up her share of the par- tition of 1795, namely Warsaw. England and Austria being disposed to countenance the plan, negotiations were entered into on this basis.

It is therefore apparent that although the Powers assembled in Congress were not on the whole unmindful of the general interests of Europe, some of them were nevertheless keenly alive to their own particular interests which they pressed to the verge of war. These conflicting interests had a depressing effect on the Congress, and the progress made was very slow. The Peace between Great Britain and the United States,2 however, tended to increase the weight of British influence in the Congress, inasmuch as she was thereby enabled to avail herself of the whole of her military resources. The news of this Peace having

1 State Papers, vol. ii, p. 563.

* Signed at Ghent, December 24, 1814; State Papers, vol. ii, p. 357.

30 CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815

reached Lord Castlereagh at Vienna on January i, 1815, Talleyrand, the French Plenipotentiary, concerted with him with a view to common action, with the result that on January 3 a Treaty of Defensive Alliance was concluded between Great Britain, France, and Austria,1 wherein the contracting parties reciprocally engaged to act in concert, with perfect impartiality and in complete good faith, to ensure that in execution of the Treaty of Paris the arrange- ments for completing its provisions be effected in a manner most conformable to the true spirit of that treaty. It went on to declare that if, in carrying out their policy thus indi- cated, an attack should be made on the possessions of one of the parties, the others, failing to effect an amicable inter- vention, would come to the assistance of the one attacked with all their available forces. Other stipulations of detail followed. The effect of this treaty was at once apparent, and all danger of war immediately vanished. In the course of February the Congress agreed to the re-establishment of the King of Saxony on his throne, this monarch at the same time renouncing all claim to the Duchy of Warsaw, and ceding a part of his kingdom to Prussia. The Congress also agreed to the retention by Austria of the portion of Eastern Galicia ceded to Warsaw in 1809 : to the surrender by Prussia of parts of Poland while retaining the Grand Duchy of Posen, and receiving Swedish Pome- rania, a portion of Saxony, the Rhine provinces, and terri- tories on the right bank of the Rhine : and to the constitu- tion of Poland as a kingdom under the sceptre of the Emperor of Russia. Thus the most difficult of the questions at issue were solved.

On Napoleon's return to France, Murat, King of Naples, failing to rouse the Italians, was defeated by the Austrians : Naples surrendered and Murat fled : Ferdinand was recalled as King of the Two Sicilies, and was recognized by the Vienna Congress. The task of settling the affairs of 1 State Papers, vol. ii, p. 1001.

CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815 31

Italy became comparatively easy. Venice and Lombardy were left with Austria, the Legations restored to the Pope, the duchies to Austrian archdukes, Parma going to Marie Louise of Austria, Napoleon's wife.

The French colonial possessions were dealt with in the Treaty of Paris of May 30, 1814, under which some were restored, and others retained by Great Britain. The resto- ration of the Dutch colonies captured by Great Britain, with the exception of the Cape of Good Hope and Demarara, &c., was arranged for in the Convention between Great Britain and the Netherlands of August 13, I8I4.1 These questions were settled independently of the Vienna Con- gress. The Constitution of the Germanic Confederation was primarily settled by a committee of German repre- sentatives appointed by the Congress and was embodied in the Congress Treaty, to which the Constitution was itself attached as Annex IX.2

The Treaty of Paris, 1814 (Article V), in stipulating for the free navigation of the Rhine, committed to the future Con- gress the consideration of the details for giving effect to that stipulation, as well as its extension to other international rivers. Articles CVIII to CXVII of the Congress Treaty therefore laid down the principles which should regulate international rivers, viz. freedom of navigation to every one throughout the entire navigable course, subject to police regulations: uniform system of collecting duties and regula- tion of tariff with a view to the encouragement of trade and navigation : repairs of towing-paths by each riverain state ; no port or forced harbour dues : general arrangement to be come to. This arrangement is embodied in the Regulations of March i8i5.3

The article touching the abolition of the slave trade was

1 State Papers, vol. ii, p. 370.

* The Treaty of Paris, 1814 (Article VI), declared that theStates of Germany should be independent, and united by a Federative Bond.

* See Regulations, March 1815. These form Annex XVI to tho Congress Treaty. State Papers, vol. ii, p. 162.

32 CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815

introduced into the Treaty of Paris at the instance of Great Britain, and it formed Article I of the additional articles between Great Britain and France.1 In it the French King engaged ' to unite all his efforts to those of His Britannic Majesty, at the approaching Congress, to induce all the Powers of Christendom to decree the abolition of the Slave Trade ', &c.

A good deal of correspondence passed between the Powers both at Paris and subsequently at Vienna on this subject. There was much opposition in France and in the French Chambers to the abolition of the traffic, although the Government expressed themselves anxious to do their utmost to accomplish it. With Spain matters were more difficult, as it was deemed that the abolition would result in the ruin of the Spanish colonies : the King, however, promised to consider what could be done consistently with the requirements of these possessions. Portugal engaged to take steps for the gradual extinction of the trade and its immediate limitation to certain localities. At Vienna Lord Castlereagh had audience of the Emperors of Russia and Austria and the King of Prussia, all of whom undertook to use their influence to bring about the abolition of the trade. The question was debated in Congress on the i6th, 20th, and 28th January, and the 4th and 8th February, 1815, the Plenipotentiaries of all the eight Powers being present.2 The desirability of the abolition of the slave trade was unanimously agreed to ' in principle '. The time for its total abolition remained in dispute. Great Britain hinted at the possibility of the exclusion from her ports of the produce of slave labour until the discontinuance of the traffic ; Spain and Portugal foreshadowed a resort to reprisals in such an eventuality. A compromise was finally effected, and a Declaration was signed on February 8 to the effect that the Powers, whilst sincerely desirous of

1 State Papers, vol. ii, p. 172. 8 Ibid., vol. iii, p. 949.

CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815 33

putting a stop as soon as possible to the traffic in slaves, recognized that this general declaration could not lay down beforehand the exact period which each particular Power might judge to be the most convenient for its definitive cessation : therefore the fixing of that period must be the subject of negotiations between the several Powers.1 This Declaration was attached to the Congress Treaty as Annex XV.

The slave trade question was further developed at the Congress of Verona in i823.2

These various matters were settled by the Plenipoten- tiaries in Congress to the best of their abilities, and they constituted the best available arrangement for ensuring the Balance of Power and the permanency of the Peace. The territorial distribution was not destined nor probably expected to be durable for all time, but much of it lasted for more than a generation. In 1830 the blending of Holland and Belgium proved a failure, and by the Treaties of 1831 and 1839 the connexion between the two was severed. In 1859 the Balance of Power was disturbed, and Lombardy and the duchies were wrested from Austria and added to the Sardinian Crown, which also acquired Sicily a little later on and the Papal territories. In 1864 Denmark was dismembered and the Elbe duchies seized by Austria and Prussia. In 1866 the Germanic Confederation was abolished and the North German Confederation (to the exclusion of Austria) was set up in its place, while Austria was further deprived of the Lombardo- Venetian kingdom, which was added to Sardinia. Sardinia then became the Kingdom of Italy. In 1870 the Balance of Power was further disturbed, and the German States (again to the exclusion of Austria) formed themselves into a German Empire, and destroyed the pre-existing boundaries of France by the annexation

• State Papers, vol. iii, p. 971.

* Ibid., vol. x, pp. 89-110. 1903

34 CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815

of Alsace and Lorraine. In 1905 the union between Sweden and Norway was dissolved.

To this extent the arrangements elaborated at the Vienna Congress have in the course of years had to give way to popular or autocratic pressure which could probably not have been foreseen or usefully counteracted at the time.

It was perhaps with a view to strengthening the work of the Congress that the sovereigns of Austria, Prussia, and Russia on September 26, 1815, concluded at Paris the treaty commonly called the ' Holy Alliance '.*

In this somewhat unusual document it was intimated as a preliminary statement that

Their Majesties the Emperor of Austria, the King of Prussia, and the Emperor of Russia having, in conse- quence of the great events which have occurred in the course of the three last years in Europe, and especially of the blessings which it has pleased Divine Providence to shower down upon those States which place their con- fidence and their hope on it alone, acquired the intimate conviction of the necessity of settling the steps to be observed by the Powers, in their reciprocal relations, upon the sublime truths which the Holy Religion of our Saviour teaches ; They solemnly declare that the present Act has no other object than to publish in the face of the whole world their fixed resolution, both in the administration of their respective States and in their political relations with every other Government, to take for their sole guide the precepts of that Holy Religion, namely the precepts of Justice, Christian Charity and Peace, which far from being applicable only to private concerns must have an immediate influence on the Councils of Princes and guide all their steps as being the only means of consolidating human institutions and remedying their imperfections. In consequence Their Majesties have agreed upon the following articles.2

Article I declared that

Conformably to the words of the Holy Scriptures which command all men to consider each other as brethren, the

1 State Papers, vol. iii, p. 211. l Ibid.

CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815 35

three contracting Monarchs will remain united by the bonds of a true and indissoluble fraternity, and consider- ing each other as fellow countrymen, they will on all occasions and in all places lend each other aid and assis- tance ; and regarding themselves towards their subjects and armies as fathers of families, they will lead them in the same spirit of fraternity with which they are ani- mated, to protect Religion, Peace and Justice.

Article II says :

In consequence, the sole principle of force, whether between the said Governments or between their subjects, shall be that of doing each other reciprocal service, and of testifying by unalterable goodwill the mutual affec- tion with which they ought to be animated, to consider themselves all as members of one and the same Christian nation ; the three allied Princes looking on themselves as merely delegated by Providence to govern three branches of the One family, namely Austria, Prussia and Russia, thus confessing that the Christian world of which they and their people form a part has in reality no other Sovereign than Him to whom alone power really belongs. . . .Their Majesties consequently recommend to their people, with the most tender solicitude, as the sole means of enjoying that peace which arises from a good conscience, and which alone is durable, to strengthen themselves every day more and more in the principles and exercise of the duties which the Divine Saviour has taught to mankind.

Article III, and last, invited all the Powers who avowed the sacred principles indicated to join in this Holy Alliance.

It is stated in Martens' Recueil de Traites l that the greater part of the Christian Powers acceded to this treaty. France acceded to it in 1815 ; the Netherlands and Wur- temberg did so in 1816 ; and Saxony, Switzerland, and the Hanse Towns in 1817. But neither the Pope nor the Sultan were invited to accede.2

1 See Note on p. 319 of Hertslct's Map of Europe by Treaty. 1 In view of the frequent references to Christianity in the treaty, the exclusion of the Sultan is less surprising than that of the Pope

D 2

36 CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815

The accession of Great Britain to the Holy Alliance was invited by the signatories in a royal letter to the Prince Regent in which the object of the compact was again set forth, and a copy of the treaty enclosed. The Prince Regent replied in a similar letter to the three Sovereigns, in which His Royal Highness stated his entire concurrence in the principles they had laid down of making the Divine Pre- cepts of the Christian religion the invariable rule of their conduct, maxims which he would himself endeavour to practice, whilst co-operating with his august allies in all measures which might be likely to contribute to the peace and happiness of mankind ; but His Royal High- ness intimated that the forms of the British Constitu- tion precluded him from acceding formally to the treaty in the shape in which it had been presented to him.1 This did not of course constitute an accession to the treaty.

It was mainly on the strength of the Holy Alliance that the three monarchs met in Conference at Troppau and at Laibach in 1820 and 1821, when they decided to intervene forcibly for the suppression of the revolution then con- vulsing Naples. Great Britain stood aloof from these pro- ceedings and withheld its approval, on the principle of non- intervention in the internal affairs of a foreign country unless under special circumstances threatening the safety of the intervenor.

The stipulations of the Act of Vienna and of the First Peace of Paris were modified by the Treaty of November 20, 1815, known as the Second Peace of Paris,2 necessitated by the Napoleonic adventure of the Hundred Days. It was therein declared that the boundaries of France should be the same as in 1790 * with certain modifications. France was thus mulcted in certain small portions of territory.

1 State Papers, vol. iii, p. 212. * Ibid., p. 280.

* Instead of 1792 as stipulated in the First Peace of Paris.

CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815 37

She was also condemned to a payment of 700,000,000 francs, the territory and the money together constituting a war indemnity.

GENERAL TREATY BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN, AUSTRIA, FRANCE, PORTUGAL, PRUSSIA, RUSSIA, SPAIN, AND SWEDEN. — Signed at Vienna, gth June, I8I5.1

English Version as presented to Parliament.

In the Name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity.

The Powers who signed the Treaty concluded at Paris on the 30th of May, 1814, having assembled at Vienna, in pursuance of Article XXXII of that Act, with the Princes and States their Allies, to complete the provisions of the said Treaty, and to add to them the arrangements rendered necessary by the state in which Europe was left at the termination of the last war ; being now desirous to embrace, in one common transaction, the various results of their negotiations, for the purpose of confirming them by their reciprocal Ratifications, have* authorised their Plenipoten- tiaries to unite, in a general Instrument, the regulations of superior and permanent interest, and to join to that Act, as integral parts of the arrangements of Congress, the Treaties, Conventions, Declarations, Regulations, and other particular Acts, as cited in the present Treaty. And the above-mentioned Powers having appointed Plenipoten- tiaries to the Congress, that is to say : —

[Here follow the names of the Plenipotentiaries.]

Such of the above Plenipotentiaries as have assisted at the close of the negotiations, after having produced their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed to place in the said general Instrument the following Articles, and to affix to them their signatures : —

Arrangements respecting the ancient Duchy of Warsaw.

ARTICLE I. The Duchy of Warsaw, with the exception of the provinces and districts which are otherwise disposed of by the following Articles, is united to the Russian Empire. It shall be irrevocably attached to it by its Con- stitution, and be possessed by His Majesty the Emperor of

1 The original French version is in State Papers, vol. ii, p. 3.

38 CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815

all the Russias, his heirs and successors in perpetuity. His Imperial Majesty reserves to himself to give to this State, enjoying a distinct administration, the interior improve- ment which he shall judge proper. He shall assume with his other titles that of Czar, King of Poland, agreeably to the form established for the titles attached to his other possessions.

The Poles, who are respective subjects of Russia, Austria, and Prussia, shall obtain a Representation and National Institutions, regulated according to the degree of political consideration, that each of the Governments to which they belong shall judge expedient and proper to grant them.1

Boundaries of the Grand Duchy of Posen.

ARTICLE II. The part of the Duchy of Warsaw which His Majesty the King of Prussia shall possess in full sove- reignty and property, for himself, his heirs, and successors, under the title of the Grand Duchy of Posen, shall be com- prised within the following line : —

Proceeding from the frontier of Eastern Prussia to the village of Neuhoff, the new limit shall follow the frontier of Western Prussia, such as it subsisted from 1772 to the Peace of Tilsit2 to the villa'ge of Leibitsch, which shall belong to the Duchy of Warsaw ; from thence shall be drawn a line, which, leaving Kompania, Grabowiec, and Szczytno to Prussia, passes the Vistula, near the last- mentioned place, from the other side of the river, which falls into the Vistula opposite Szczytno, to the ancient limit of the district of the Netze, near Gross-Opoczko, so that Sluzewo shall belong to the Duchy, and Przy- branowa, Hollaender, and Maciejevo, to Prussia. From Gross-Opoczko it shall pass by Chlewiska, which shall re- main to Prussia, to the village of Przybyslaw, and from thence by the villages of Piaski, Chelmce, Witowiczki, Kobylinka, Woyczyn, Orchowo, to the town of Powidz.

From Powidz it shall continue by the town of Slupce

1 By a Russian Manifesto of February 14/26, 1832, the Kingdom of Poland was declared to be perpetually united to the Russian Empire, and to form an integral part thereof. The British Government protested against this Manifesto on July 3, 1832, as being an infraction of the Vienna Congress Treaty. (See Hertslet's Map of Europe by Treaty, vol. i, p. 94, footnote.)

* Treaty of Tilsit, 1807.

CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815 39

to the point of confluence of the rivers Wartha and Prosna.

From this point it shall reascend the course of the river Prosna to the village of Koscielnawies, to within one league of the town of Kahsch.

Then leaving to that town (on the side of the left bank of the Prosna), a semi-circular territory measured by the distance from Koscielnawies to Kalisch, the line shall return to the course of the Prosna, and shall continue to follow it, reascending by the towns of Grabow, Wieruszow, Boleslawiec, so as to terminate near the village of Gola, upon the frontier of Silesia, opposite Pitschin.

Salt-Mines of Wieliczka.

ARTICLE III. His Imperial and Royal Apostolic Majesty shall possess, in full property and sovereignty, the salt- mines of Wieliczka, and the territory thereto belonging.

Boundaries between Galicia and Russia.

ARTICLE IV. The way or bed (Thalweg) of the Vistula shall separate Galicia from the territory of the Free Town of Cracow. It shall serve at the same time as the frontier between Galicia and that part of the ancient Duchy of Warsaw united to the States of His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, as far as the vicinity of the town of Zavichost.

From Zavichost to the Bug, the dry frontiers shall be determined by the line drawn in the Treaty of Vienna of 1809, excepting such modifications as by common consent may be thought necessary to be introduced.

The frontier from the Bug shall be re-established on this side (de ce cute) between the two Empires, such as it was before the said Treaty.

Restitution of Districts separated from Eastern Galicia.

ARTICLE V. His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias cedes to His Imperial and Royal Apostolic Majesty the districts which have been separated from Eastern Galicia, in consequence of the Treaty of Vienna of iSog,1 from the

1 Extract from the Treaty of Peace between Austria and France. — Vienna, 14 Oct. 1809: Art. Ill § 5. His Majesty the Emperor of Austria cedes to His Majesty the Emperor of Russia, in the

40 CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815

Circles of Zloczow, Brzezan, Tarnopol, and Zalesczyk, and the frontiers on this side (de ce cote) shall be re-established, such as they were before the date of the said Treaty.

Cracow declared a Free Town.

ARTICLE VI. The Town of Cracow, with its Territory, is declared to be for ever a Free, Independent, and strictly Neutral City, under the Protection of Austria, Russia, and Prussia.

Boundaries of the Territory of Cracow.

ARTICLE VII. The territory of the Free Town of Cracow shall have for its frontier upon the left bank of the Vistula a line, which, beginning at the spot near the village of Wolica, where a stream falls into the Vistula, shall ascend this stream by Cio, and Koscielniki as far as Czulice, so that these villages may be included in the district of the Free Town of Cracow ; from thence passing along the frontiers of these. villages the line shall continue by Dzic- kanovice, Garlice, Tomaszow, Karniowice, which shall also remain in the territory of Cracow, to the point where the limit begins which separates the district of Krzeszovice from that of Olkusz ; from thence it shall follow this limit between the two said provinces, till it reaches the frontiers of Silesian Prussia.

Privileges granted to Podgorze.

ARTICLE VIII. His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, wishing particularly to facilitate as much as possible on his part, the commercial relations, and good neighbourhood between Galicia and the Free Town of Cracow, grants for ever to the town of Podgorze, the privileges of a Free Commercial Town, such as are enjoyed by the town of Brody. This liberty of commerce shall extend to a distance of 500 toises from the barrier of the suburbs of the town of Podgorze.

In consequence of this perpetual concession, which never- theless shall not affect the rights of sovereignty of His Imperial and Royal Apostolic Majesty, the Austrian custom- Easternmost portion of Ancient Gallicia, a territory comprising a population of 400,000 souls, in which the town of Brody shall not be included. This territory shall be amicably delimited by Commis- sioners of the two Empires.

CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815 41

houses shall be established only in places situated beyond that limit. No military establishment shall be formed that can menace the Neutrality of Cracow, or obstruct the liberty of commerce which His Imperial and Royal Apostolic Majesty grants to the town and district of Podgorze.

Neutrality of Cracow.

ARTICLE IX. The Courts of Russia, Austria, and Prussia engage to respect, and to cause to be always respected, the Neutrality of the Free Town of Cracow and its Territory. No armed force shall be introduced upon any pretence whatever.

On the other hand it is understood and expressly stipu- lated that no asylum shall be afforded in the Free Town and territory of Cracow to fugitives, deserters, and persons under prosecution, belonging to the country' of either of the High Powers aforesaid ; and in the event of the demand of their surrender by the competent authorities, such individuals shall be arrested and given up without delay, and conveyed, under a proper escort, to the guard appointed to receive them at the frontier.

'Constitution, Academy, and Bishopric of Cracow.

ARTICLE X. The dispositions of the Constitution of the Free Town of Cracow, concerning the Academy, the Bishopric, and Chapter of that town, such as they are specified in Articles VII, XV, XVI, and XVII of the Additional Treaty relative to Cracow, which is annexed to the present General Treaty, shall have the same force and validity as if they were textually inserted in this Act.

General Amnesty in Poland.

ARTICLE XI. A full, general, and special Amnesty shall be granted in favour of all individuals, of whatever rank, sex, or condition they may be.

Sequestrations removed.

ARTICLE XII. In consequence of the preceding Article, no person in future shall be prosecuted or disturbed, in any manner, by reason of any participation, direct or in- direct, at any time, in the political, civil, or military events

42 CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815

in Poland. All proceedings, suits, or prosecutions are con- sidered as null, the sequestrations and provisional conns- cations shall be taken off, and every Act promulgated on this ground shall be of no effect.

Exception to preceding Article.

ARTICLE XIII. From these general regulations on the subject of confiscation are excepted all those cases in which edicts or sentences, finally pronounced, have already been fully executed, and have not been annulled by subsequent events.

Free Navigation of Rivers in Poland.

ARTICLE XIV. The principles established for the free navigation of Rivers and Canals, in the whole extent of ancient Poland, as well as for the trade to the ports, for the circulation of articles the growth and produce of the different Polish provinces, and for the commerce, relative to goods in transitu, such as they are specified in Articles XXIV, XXV, XXVI, XXVIII, and XXIX of the Treaty between Austria and Russia, and in Articles XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVIII, and XXIX of the Treaty between Russia and Prussia, shall be invariably maintained.

Cessions by the King of Saxony to the King of Prussia.

ARTICLE XV. His Majesty the King of Saxony renounces in perpetuity for himself, and all his descendants and successors, in favour of His Majesty the King of Prussia, all his right and title to the provinces, districts, and terri- tories, or parts of territories, of the Kingdom of Saxony, hereafter named ; and His Majesty the King of Prussia shall possess those countries in complete sovereignty and property, and shall unite them to his Monarchy. The districts and territories thus ceded shall be separated from the rest of the Kingdom of Saxony by a line, which hence- forth shall form the frontier between the Prussian and Saxon territories, so that all that is comprised in the limit formed by this line shall be restored to His Majesty the King of Saxony ; but His Majesty renounces all those districts and territories that are situated beyond that line, and which belonged to him before the war.

The line shall begin from the frontiers of Bohemia, near Wiese, in the neighbourhood of Seidenberg, following the

CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815 43

stream of the River Wittich, until its junction with the Neisse.

From the Neisse it shall pass to the Circle of Eigen, between Tauchritz, which shall belong to Prussia, and Bertschoff, which shall remain to Saxony ; then it shall follow the northern frontier of the Circle of Eigen, to the angle between Paulsdorf and Ober-Sohland ; thence it shall be continued to the limits that separate the Circle of Gortitz from that of Bautzen, in such a manner that Ober, Mittel and Nieder Sohland, Olisch, and Radewitz remain in the possession of Saxony.

The great post road between Gorlitz and Bautzen shall belong to Prussia, as far as the limits of the said Circles. Then the line shall follow the frontier of the Circle to Dubrauke ; it shall then extend upon the heights to the right of the Lobauer-Wasser, so that this rivulet, with its two banks, and the places upon them, as far as Neudorf, shall remain, with this village, to Saxony.

The line shall then fall again upon the Spree, and the Schwarzwasser ; Liska, Hermsdorf, Ketten, and Solchdorf are assigned to Prussia.

From the Schwarz-Elster, near Solchdorf, a right line shall be drawn to the frontier of the Lordship of Konigs- bruck, near Gross-graebchen. This lordship remains to Saxony, and the line shall follow its northern boundary as far as the Bailiwick of Grossenhayn, in the neighbourhood of Ortrand. Ortrand, and the road from that place by Merzdorf, Stolzenhayn, Grobeln, and Miihlberg (with the villages on that road, so that no part of it remain beyond the Prussian territory) shall be under the Government of Prussia. The frontier from Grobeln shall be traced to the Elbe near Fichtenberg, and then shall follow the Bailiwick of Miihlberg. Fichtenberg shall be the property of Prussia.

From the Elbe to the frontier of the country of Merse- burg, it shall be so regulated that the Bailiwicks of Torgau, Eilenburg, and Delitsch, shall pass to Prussia, while those of Oschatz, Wurzen, and Leipsic, shall remain to Saxony. The line shall follow the frontier of these bailiwicks, dividing some inclosures and demi-inclosures. The road from Miihl- berg to Eilenburg shall be wholly within the Prussian territory.

From Podelwitz (belonging to the Bailiwick of Leipsic, and remaining to Saxony) as far as Eytra, which also re-

44 CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815

mains to her, the line shall divide the country of Merseburg in such a manner that Breitenfeld, Haenichen, Gross and Klein-Dolzig, Mark-Ranstadt and Knaut-Nauendorf, remain to Saxony ; and Modelwitz, Skenditz, Klein-Lie- benau, Alt-Ranstadt, Schkoehlen, and Zietschen, pass to Prussia.

From thence the line shall divide the Bailiwick of Pegau between the Floss-graben 'and the Weisse-Elster ; the former, from the point where it separates itself above the town of Crossen (which forms part of the Bailiwick of Haynsburg) from the Weisse-Elster to the point where it joins the Saale> below the town of Merseburg, shall belong, in its whole course between those two towns, with both its banks, to the Prussian territory.

From thence, where the frontier touches upon that of the country of Zeitz, the line shall follow it as far as the boundary of the country of Altenburg, near Luckau.

The frontiers of the Circle of Neustadt, which wholly falls under the dominion of Prussia, remain untouched.

The inclosures of Voigtland, in the district of Reuss, that is to say Gef all, Blintendorf , Sparenberg, and Blankenberg, are comprised in the share of Prussia.

Titles to be assumed by the King of Prussia.

ARTICLE XVI. The provinces and districts of the King- dom of Saxony, which are transferred to the dominion of His Majesty the King of Prussia, shall be distinguished by the name of the Duchy of Saxony, and His Majesty shall add to his Titles those of Duke of Saxony, Landgrave of Thuringia, Margrave of the two Lusatias, and Count of Henneberg.

His Majesty the King of Saxony shall continue to bear the title of Margrave of Upper Lusatia.

His Majesty shall also continue, with relation to, and in virtue of his right of eventual succession to the possessions of the Ernestine branch, to bear the title of Landgrave of Thuringia and Count of Henneberg.

Guarantee of the Cessions indicated in Article XV.

ARTICLE XVII. Austria, Russia, Great Britain, and

France guarantee to His Majesty the King of Prussia, his

descendants and successors, the possession of the countries

marked out in Article XV, in full property and sovereignty.

CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815 45

Renunciation by the Emperor of Austria of Rights of Sovereignty over Lusatia.

ARTICLE XVIII. His Imperial and Royal Apostolic Majesty, wishing to give to the King of Prussia a fresh proof of his desire to remove every object of future discus- sion between their two Courts, renounces for himself and his successors his rights of Sovereignty over the Margra- viates of Upper and Lower Lusatia, which belonged to him as King of Bohemia, as far as these rights concern the portion of these provinces placed under the dominion of His Majesty the King of Prussia by virtue of the Treaty with His Majesty the King of Saxony, concluded at Vienna on the i8th May, 1815.

As to the right of reversion of His Imperial and Royal Apostolic Majesty to the said portion of the Lusatias united to Prussia, it is transferred to the House of Brandenburg now reigning in Prussia, His Imperial and Royal Apostolic Majesty reserving to himself and his successors, the power of resuming that right in the event of the extinction of the said reigning House.

His Imperial and Royal Apostolic Majesty renounces also in favour of His Prussian Majesty, the districts of Bohemia inclosed within the part of Upper Lusatia ceded by the Treaty of the i8th May, 1815, to his Prussian Majesty, which districts comprehend the places of Giintersdorf, Taubentraenke, Neukretschen, Nieder-Gerlachsheim, Win- kel, and Ginkel, with their territories.

Reciprocal Renunciation of Feudal Rights. ARTICLE XIX. His Majesty the King of Prussia and His Majesty the King of Saxony, wishing particularly to remove every object of future contest or dispute, renounce, each on his own part, and reciprocally in favour of one another, all feudal rights or pretensions which they might exercise or might have exercised beyond the frontiers fixed by the present Treaty.

Reciprocal Freedom of Emigration.

ARTICLE XX. His Majesty the King of Prussia promises to direct that proper care be taken relative to whatever may affect the property and interests of the respective subjects, upon the most liberal principles.

46 CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815

The present Article shall be observed, particularly with regard to the concerns of those individuals who possess property both under the Prussian and Saxon Govern- ments, to the commerce of Leipsic, and to all other objects of the same nature ; and in order that the individual liberty of the inhabitants, both of the ceded and other provinces, may not be infringed, they shall be allowed to emigrate from one territory to the other, without being exempted, however, from military service, and after fulfilling the formalities required by the laws. They may also remove their property without being subject to any fine or drawback (Abzugsgeld).

Property of Religious Establishments.

ARTICLE XXI. The communities, corporations, and re- ligious establishments, and those for public instruction in the provinces ceded by His Majesty the King of Saxony to Prussia, or in the provinces and districts remaining to His Saxon Majesty, shall preserve their property, whatever changes they may undergo, as well as the rents becoming due to them, according to the act of their foundation, or which they have acquired by a legal title since that period under the Prussian and Saxon Governments ; and neither party shall interfere in the administration and in the col- lection of the revenues, provided that they be conducted in a manner conformable to the laws, and that the charges be defrayed, to which all property or rents of the like nature are subjected, in the territory in which they occur.

General Amnesty in Saxony.

ARTICLE XXII. No individual domiciliated in the pro- vinces which are under the dominion of His Majesty the King of Saxony, any more than an individual domiciliated in those which by the present Treaty pass under the dominion of the King of Prussia, shall be molested in his person, his property, rents, pensions, or revenues of any kind, in his rank or dignities, nor be prosecuted or called to account in any manner for any part which he, either in a civil or military capacity, may have taken in the events that have occurred since the commencement of the war, terminated by the Peace concluded at Paris on the 30th of May, 1814.

CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815 47

This Article equally extends to those who, not being domiciliated in either part of Saxony, may possess in it landed property, rents, pensions or revenues of any kind.

Designation of Provinces of which Prussia resumes Possession.

ARTICLE XXIII. His Majesty the King of Prussia having in consequence of the last war, reassumed the possession of the provinces and territories which had been ceded by the Peace of Tilsit1 it is acknowledged and declared by the present Article that His Majesty, his heirs and suc- cessors, shall possess anew, as formerly, in full property and Sovereignty, the following countries, that is to say ;

Those of his ancient provinces of Poland specified in Article II ;

The City of Dantzig and its territory, as the latter was determined by the Treaty of Tilsit 2 ;

The Circle of Cottbus ;

The Old March ;

The part of the Circle of Magdeburg situated on the left bank of the Elbe, together with the Circle of the Saale ;

The Principality of Halberstadt, with the Lordships of Derenburg, and of Hassenrode ;

The Town and Territory of Quedlinburg (save and except the rights of Her Royal Highness the Princess Sophia Albertine of Sweden, Abbess of Quedlinburg, conformably to the arrangements made in 1803) ;

The Prussian part of the County of Mansfeld ;

The Prussian part of the County of Hohenstein ;

The Eichsfeld ;

The Town of Nordhausen with its territory ;

The Town of Muhlhausen with its territory ;

The Prussian part of the district of Trefourt with Dorla ;

The Town and Territory of Erfurth, with the exception of Klein-Brembach and Berlstedt, inclosed in the Princi- pality of Weimar, ceded to the Grand Duke of Saxe- Weimar by Article XXXIX ;

The Bailiwick of Wandersleben, belonging to the County of Unter-gleichen ;

The Principality of Paderborn, with the Prussian part of the Bailiwicks of Schwallenberg, Oldenburg, and Stoppel-

1 Treaty of Tilsit. 1807.

1 Article VI. La Ville de Danzig avec un territoire de 2 lieues de Rayon autour de son enceinte.

48 CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815

berg, and the jurisdictions (Gerichte) of Hagendorn and Odenhausen, situated in the territory of Lippe ;

The County of Mark, with the part of Lipstadt belonging to it ;

The County of Werden ;

The County of Essen ;

The part of the Duchy of Cleves on the right bank of the Rhine, with the town and fortress of Wesel ; the part of the Duchy, situated on the left bank, specified in Arti- cle XXV;

The secularised Chapter of Elten ;

The Principality of Munster, that is to say, the Prussian part of the former Bishopric of Munster, with the exception of that part which has been ceded to His Britannic Majesty, King of Hanover, in virtue of Article XXVII ;

The secularised Provostship of Cappenburg ;

The County of Tecklenburg ;

The County of Lingen, with the exception of that part ceded to the kingdom of Hanover by Article XXVII ;

The Principality of Minden ;

The County of Ravensburg ;

The secularised Chapter of Herford ;

The Principality of Neufchatel, with the County of Valengin, such as their Frontiers are regulated by the Treaty of Paris, and by Article LXXVI of this General Treaty.

The same disposition extends to the rights of Sovereignty and suzerainete over the County of Wernigerode, to that of high protection over the County of Hohen-Limbourg, and to all the other rights or pretensions whatsoever which His Prussian Majesty possessed and exercised, before the Peace of Tilsit, and which he has not renounced by other Treaties, Acts, or Conventions.

Prussian Possessions on this side (en de$a) of the Rhine.

ARTICLE XXIV. His Majesty the King of Prussia shall unite to his Monarchy in Germany, on this side of the Rhine, to be possessed by him and his successors in full property and Sovereignty, the following countries :

The provinces of Saxony designated in Article XV, with the exception of the places and territories ceded, in virtue of Article XXXIX, to His Highness the Grand Duke of Saxe- Weimar ;

CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815 49

The territories ceded to Prussia by His Britannic Majesty, King of Hanover, by Article XXIX ;

Part of the Department of Fulda, and such of the terri- tories comprehended therein as are specified in Article XL ;

The Town and Territory of Wetzlar, according to Article XLII ;

The Grand Duchy of Berg with the Lordships of Harden- berg, Broik, Styrum, Scholler and Odenthal, formerly be- longing to the said Duchy under the Palatine Government ;

The districts of the ancient Archbishopric of Cologne, lately belonging to the Grand Duchy of Berg ;

The Duchy of Westphalia, as lately possessed by His Royal Highness the Grand Duke of Hesse ;

The County of Dortmund ;

The Principality of Corbey ;

The Mediatised Districts specified in Article XLIII.

The ancient possessions of the House of Nassau-Dietz, having been ceded to Prussia by His Majesty the King of the Netherlands, and a part of these possessions having been exchanged for the districts belonging to their Serene Highnesses the Duke and Prince of Nassau, the King of Prussia shall possess them, in Sovereignty and property, and unite them to his monarchy ;

1. The Principality of Siegen with the Bailiwicks of Burbach and Neunkirchen, with the exception of a part containing 12,000 inhabitants, to belong to the Duke and Prince of Nassau ;

2. The Bailiwicks of Hohen-Solms, Greifenstein, Braun- fels, Frensberg, Friedewald, Schonstein, Schonberg, Alten- kirchen, Altenwied, Dierdorf, Neuerburg, Linz, Hammer- stein, with Engers and Heddesdorf ; the town and territory (Banlieue, Gemarkung) of Neuwied ; the parish of Ham, belonging to the Bailiwick of Hackenberg ; the parish of Horhausen, constituting part of the Bailiwick of Hersbach, and the parts of the Bailiwicks of Vallendar and Ehren- breitstein, on the right bank of the Rhine, designated in the Convention concluded between His Majesty the King of Prussia and their Serene Highnesses the Duke and Prince of Nassau, annexed to the present Treaty.

Prussian Possessions on the left bank of the Rhine. ARTICLE XXV. His Majesty the King of Prussia shall also possess in full property and Sovereignty, the countries

1903 r

50 CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815

on the left bank of the Rhine, included in the frontier hereinafter designated :

This frontier shall commence on the Rhine at Bingen ; it shall thence ascend the course of the Nahe to the junction of this river with the Glan, and along the Glan to the village of Medart, below Lauterecken ; the towns of Kreutznach and Meisenheim, with their territories, to belong entirely to Prussia ; but Lauterecken and its territory to remain beyond the Prussian frontier. From the Glan the frontier shall pass by Medart, Merzweiler, Langweiler, Nieder and Ober-Feckenbach, Ellenbach, Creunchenborn, Answeiler, Cronweiler, Nieder-Brambach, Burbach, Bosch- weiler, Heubweiler, Hambach, and Rintzenberg, to the limits of the Canton of Hermeskeil ; the above places shall be included within the Prussian frontiers, and shall, to- gether with their territories, belong to Prussia.

From Rintzenberg to the Sarre the line of demarcation shall follow the cantonal limits, so that the Cantons of Hermeskeil and Conz (in which latter, however, are excepted the places on the left bank of the Sarre) shall remain wholly to Prussia, while the Cantons of Wadern, Merzig, and Sarre- burg are to be beyond the Prussian frontier.

From the point where the limit of the Canton of Conz, below Gomlingen, traverses the Sarre, the line shall descend the Sarre till it falls into the Moselle ; thence it shall re- ascend the Moselle to its junction with the Sarre, from the latter river to the mouth of the Our, and along the Our to the limits of the ancient Department of the Ourthe. The places traversed by these rivers shall not at all be divided, but shall belong, with their territories, to the Power in whose State the greater part of these places shall be situ- ated ; the Rivers themselves, in so far as they form the frontier, shall belong in common to the two Powers border- ing on them.

In the old Department of the Ourthe, the five Cantons of Saint- Vith, Malmedy, Cronenburg, Schleiden, and Eupen, with the advanced point of the Canton of Aubel,1 to the south of Aix-la-Chapelle, shall belong to Prussia, and the

1 The Dutch and Prussian Commissioners, when they came to delimit the frontier, disagreed here, and finally the village of Moresnet was left without any nationality at all. It is about 20 miles east of Liege, and since 1839 has been administered by Belgium and Prussia jointly.

CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815 51

frontier shall follow that of these cantons, so that a line, drawn from north to south, may cut the said point of the Canton of Aubel, and be prolonged as far as the point of contact of the three old Departments of the Ourthe, the Lower Meuse, and the Roer ; leaving that point, the frontier shall follow the line which separates these two last depart- ments till it reaches the river Worm, which falls into the Roer, and shall go along this river to the point where it again touches the limits of these two departments ; when it shall pursue that limit to the south of Hillensberg, shall ascend from thence towards the north, and leaving Hillens- berg to Prussia, and cutting the Canton of Sittard in two parts, nearly equal, so that Sittard and Susteren remain on the left, shall reach the old Dutch territory ; then following the old frontier of that territory, to the point where it touched the old Austrian Principality of Guelders, on the side of Ruremonde, and directing itself towards the most eastern point of the Dutch territory, to the north of Swal- men, it shall continue to inclose this territory.

Then, setting out from the most eastern point, it joins that other part of the Dutch territory in which Venloo is situated, without including the latter town and its district ; thence to the old Dutch frontier near Mook, situated below Genep, it shall follow the course of the Meuse, at such a distance from the right bank that all the places situated within a thousand Rhenish yards (Rheinlandische Rutheri) of this bank shall, with their territories, belong to the kingdom of the Netherlands; it being well understood, however, in regard to the reciprocity of this principle, that no point of the bank of the Meuse shall constitute a portion of the Prussian territory, unless such point approach to within 800 Rhenish yards of it.

From the point where the line just described joins the old Dutch frontier, as far as the Rhine, this frontier shall remain essentially as it was in 1795, between Cleves and the United Provinces. It shall be examined by the Com- mission which shall be appointed without delay by the two Governments to proceed to the exact determination of the limits, both of the kingdom of the Netherlands, and the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg, designated in Articles LXVI and LXVIII, and this Commission shall regulate, with the aid of experienced persons, whatever concerns the hydro-technical constructions, and other analogous points,

E 2

52 CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815

in the most equitable manner, and conformably to the mutual interests of the Prussian States and of those of the Netherlands. This same disposition extends to the regula- tion of the limits in the Districts of Kyfwaerd, Lobith, and all the territory to Kekerdom.

The places (enclaves) named Huissen, Malburg, Lymers, with the town of Sevenaer, and the Lordship of Weel, shall form a part of the kingdom of the Netherlands, and His Prussian Majesty renounces them in perpetuity for himself, his heirs and successors.

His Majesty the King of Prussia, in uniting to his States the provinces and districts designated in the present Article, enters into all the rights and takes upon himself all the charges and engagements stipulated with respect to the countries dismembered from France by the Treaty of Paris of the 30th May, 1814.

The Prussian provinces upon the two banks of the Rhine, as far as above the town of Cologne, which shall also be comprised within this district, shall bear the name of Grand Duchy of the Lower Rhine, and His Majesty shall assume the title of it.

Kingdom of Hanover.

ARTICLE XXVI. His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, having substituted to his ancient title of Elector of the Holy Roman Empire, that of King of Hanover, and this title having been acknow- ledged by all the Powers of Europe, and by the Princes and Free Towns of Germany, the countries which have till now composed the Electorate of Brunswick-Luneburg, according as their limits have been recognised and fixed for the future, by the following Articles, shall henceforth form the Kingdom of Hanover.1

Cessions by the King of Prussia to the Kingdom of Hanover.

ARTICLE XXVII. His Majesty the King of Prussia cedes to His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, King of Hanover, to be possessed by His Majesty and his successors, in full property and Sovereignty :

1 The Kingdom of Hanover was annexed to the Prussian Dominions by a Decree of the King of Prussia of September 20, 1866. (See State Papers, vol. Ivi, p. 1067.)

CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815 53

1. The Principality of Hildesheim, which shall pass under the Government of His Majesty, with all the rights and all the charges with which the said Principality was transferred to the Prussian Government ;

2. The Town and Territory of Goslar ;

3. The Principality of East Frieseland (Ost Friese), including the country called Harlingerland, under the con- ditions reciprocally stipulated in Article XXX for the navigation of the Ems and the commerce of the port of Embden. The States of the Principality shall preserve their rights and privileges ;

4. The Lower County (Nieder Grafschaft) of Lingen, and the part of the Principality of Prussian Munster which is situated between this county and the part of Rheina- Wolbeck occupied by the Hanoverian Government ; but as it has been agreed that the kingdom of Hanover shall obtain by this cession an accession of territory, comprising a population of 22,000 souls, and as the Lower County of Lingen and the part of the Principality of Munster here mentioned, might not come up to this condition, His Majesty the King of Prussia engages to cause the line of demarcation to be extended into the Principality of Munster, as far as may be necessary to contain that population. The Commission, which the Prussian and Hanoverian Governments shall name without delay, to proceed to the exact regulation of the limits, shall be particularly charged with the execution of this provision.

His Prussian Majesty renounces in perpetuity, for him- self, his descendants, and successors, the Provinces and Territories mentioned in the present Article, as well as all the rights which have any relation to them.

Renunciation by Prussia of the Chapter of St. Peter at Noerten.

ARTICLE XXVIII. His Majesty the King of Prussia renounces in perpetuity, for himself, his descendants, and successors, all right and claim whatever that His Majesty, in his quality of Sovereign of Eichsfeld, might advance to the Chapter of St. Peter, in the borough of Noerten, or to its dependencies, situated in the Hanoverian territory.

Cessions by the Kingdom of Hanover to Prussia.

ARTICLE XXIX. His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, King of Hanover,

54 CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815

cedes to His Majesty the King of Prussia, to be possessed by him and his successors, in full property and sovereignty :

1. That part of the Duchy of Lauenburg situated upon the right bank of the Elbe, with the villages of Luneburg, situated on the same bank. The part of the duchy upon the left bank remains to the kingdom of Hanover. The States of that part of the duchy which passes under the Prussian Government shall preserve their rights and privileges ; especially those founded upon the provincial Reces of the I5th September, 1702, and confirmed by the King of Great Britain, now reigning, under date of 2ist June, 1765 ;

2. The Bailiwick of Klotze ;

3. The Bailiwick of Elbingerode ;

4. The Villages of Rudigershagen and Gaenseteich ;

5. The Bailiwick of Reckeberg.

His Britannic Majesty, King of Hanover, renounces for himself, his descendants and successors for ever, the Provinces and Districts specified in the present Article, and all the rights which have reference to them.

Navigation and Commerce between the two States.

ARTICLE XXX. His Majesty the King of Prussia, and His Britannic Majesty, King of Hanover, animated with the desire of entirely equalising the advantages of the commerce of the Ems and of the Port of Embden, and of rendering them common to their respective subjects, have agreed on this head to what follows : —

1. The Hanoverian Government engages to cause to be executed, at its expense, in the years 1815 and 1816, the works which a Commission, composed partly of artists,1 and to be immediately appointed by Prussia and Hanover, shall deem necessary to render navigable that part of the river Ems which extends from the Prussian frontier to its mouth, and to keep it, after the execution of such works, always in the same state in which those works shall have placed it for the benefit of navigation.

2. The Prussian subjects shall be allowed to import and export, by the port of Embden, all kinds of provisions, productions, and goods, whether natural or artificial, and to keep in the town of Embden, warehouses wherein to

1 ' A mixed commission of experts.' See French version, State Papers, vol. ii, p. 24.

CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815 55

place the said goods for two years, dating from their arrival in the towns, without their being subject to any other inspection than that to which those of the Hanoverian subjects are liable.

3. The Prussian vessels and merchants of the same nation shall not pay for navigation, for exportation or importation of merchandise, or for warehousing, any other tolls or duties than those charged upon the Hanoverian subjects. These tolls and duties shall be regulated by agreement between Prussia and Hanover, and no altera- tion shall be introduced into the tariff hereafter but by mutual consent. The privileges and liberties just specified extend equally to those Hanoverian subjects who navigate that part of the river Ems which remains to the King of Prussia.

4. Prussian subjects shall not be compellable to employ the merchants of Embden for the trade they carry on with that port ; they shall be at liberty to dispose of their commodities either to the inhabitants of the town or to foreigners, without paying any other duties than those to which the Hanoverian subjects are subjected, and which cannot be raised but by mutual consent.

His Majesty the King of Prussia, on his part, engages to grant to Hanoverian subjects the free navigation of the canal of the Stecknitz, so as not to exact from them any other duties than those which shall be paid by the inhabi- tants of the Duchy of Lauenburg. His Prussian Majesty engages, besides, to insure these advantages to Hanoverian subjects, should he hereafter cede the Duchy of Lauenburg to another Sovereign.

Military Roads.

ARTICLE XXXI. His Majesty the King of Prussia and His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, King of Hanover, mutually agree to three military roads through their respective dominions.

ist. One from Halberstadt, through the country of Hildesheim, to Minden.

2nd. A second from the Old March, through Gifhorn and Neustadt, to Minden.

3rd. A third from Osnabruck, through Ippenbiiren and Rheina to Bentheim.

The two first in favour of Prussia, and the third in favour of Hanover.

56 CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815

The two Governments shall appoint, without delay, a Commission to prepare, by common consent, the neces- sary regulations for the establishment of the said roads.

Relations of the Due de Looz-Corswaren and of the County of Bentheim with the Kingdom of Hanover.

ARTICLE XXXII. The Bailiwick of Meppen, belonging to the Duke of Aremberg, as well as the part of Rheina- Wolbeck, belonging to the Duke of Looz-Corswaren, which at this moment are provisionally occupied by the Hano- verian Government, shall be placed in such relations with the Kingdom of Hanover, as the Federative Constitution of Germany shall regulate for the mediatised territories.

The Prussian and Hanoverian Governments having nevertheless reserved to themselves to agree hereafter, if necessary, to the fixing of another line of frontier with regard to the county belonging to the Duke of Looz- Corswaren, the said Governments shall charge the Com- mission they may name for fixing the limits of the part of the County of Lingen ceded to Hanover, to deliberate thereupon, and to adjust definitively the frontiers of that part of the county belonging to the Duke of Looz-Corswaren, which, as aforesaid, is to be possessed by the Hanoverian Government.

The relations between the Hanoverian Government and the County of Bentheim shall remain as regulated by the Treaties of Mortgage existing between His Britannic Majesty and the Count of Bentheim ; and when the rights derived from this Treaty shall have expired, the relations of the County of Bentheim towards the Kingdom of Hanover shall be such as the Federative Constitution of Germany shall regulate for the mediatised territories.

Cession to be made by the King of Hanover to the Duke of Oldenburg.

ARTICLE XXXIII. His Britannic Majesty, King of Hanover, in order to meet the wishes of His Prussian Majesty to procure a suitable arrondissement of territory for His Serene Highness the Duke of Oldenburg, promises to cede to him a district containing a population of 5,000 inhabitants.

CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815 57

Title of Grand Duke in the House of Holstein-Oldenburg.

ARTICLE XXXIV. His Serene Highness the Duke of Holstein-Oldenburg shall assume the title of Grand Duke of Oldenburg.

Title of Grand Duke in the Houses of Mecklenburg-Schwerin and Mecklenburg-Strelitz.

ARTICLE XXXV. Their Serene Highnesses the Dukes of Mecklenburg-Schwerin and Mecklenburg-Strelitz shall assume the titles of Grand Dukes of Mecklenburg-Schwerin and Strelitz.

Title of Grand Duke in the House of Saxe-Weimar.

ARTICLE XXXVI. His Highness the Duke of Saxe- Weimar shall assume the title of Grand Duke of Saxe- Weimar.

Cessions to be made by Prussia to the Grand Duke of Saxe- Weimar.

ARTICLE XXXVII. His Majesty the King of Prussia shall cede from the mass of his States, as they have been fixed and recognised by the present Treaty, to His Royal Highness the Grand Duke of Saxe-Weimar, districts con- taining a population of 50,000 inhabitants, contiguous to, or bordering upon, the Principality of Weimar.

His Prussian Majesty engages also to cede to His Royal Highness out of that part of the Principality of Fulda which has been given up to him in virtue of the same stipulations, districts containing a population of 27,000 inhabitants.

His Royal Highness the Grand Duke of Weimar shall possess the above districts in full property and Sovereignty, and shall unite them in perpetuity to his present States.

Ulterior Arrangements respecting these Cessions.

ARTICLE XXXVIII. The districts and territories which are to be ceded to His Royal Highness the Grand Duke of Saxe-Weimar, in virtue of the preceding Article, shall be determined by a particular Convention ; and His Majesty the King of Prussia engages to conclude this Convention,

58 CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815

and to cause the above districts and territories to be given up to His Royal Highness, within two months from the date of the exchange of the ratifications of the Treaty concluded at Vienna, ist June, 1815, between His Prussian Majesty and His Royal Highness the Grand Duke.

Territories to be made over immediately to the Grand Duke of Weimar.

ARTICLE XXXIX. His Majesty the King of Prussia, however, cedes immediately, and promises to give up to His Royal Highness, in the space of a fortnight, reckoning from the signature of the above-mentioned Treaty, the following districts and territories ; viz.,

The Lordship of Blankenhayn, with the reservation of the Bailiwick of Wandersleben, belonging to Unter- Gleichen, which is not to be comprised in this cession ;

The Lower Lordship (Niedere-Herrschaft) of Kranichfeld, the Commanderies of the Teutonic order of Zwaetzen, Lehesten, and Liebstadt, with their demesnial revenues, which, constituting a part of the Bailiwick of Eckartsberga, are inclosed in the territory of Saxe- Weimar, as well as all the other territories inclosed within the Principality of Weimar, and belonging to the said bailiwick ; the Bailiwick of Tautenburg, with the exception of Droizen, Gorschen, Wethalung, Wetterscheid, and Mollschiitz, which shall remain to Prussia ;

The Village of Remssla, as well as the Villages of Klein- Brembach and Berlstedt, inclosed within the Principality of Weimar, and belonging to the territory of Erfurth ;

The property of the Villages of Bischoffsroda and Probsteizella, inclosed within the territory of Eisenach, the Sovereignty of which already belongs to His Royal Highness the Grand Duke.

The population of these different districts is understood to form part of that of 50,000 souls, secured to His Royal Highness the Grand Duke of Saxe-Weimar, by Article XXXVII, and shall be deducted from it.

Cession of a Portion of the former Department of Fulda to Prussia.

ARTICLE XL. The Department of Fulda, together with the territories of the ancient Nobility (I'Ancienne Noblesse

CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815 59

immediate de I'Empire) comprised, at this moment, under the provisional administration of this department, viz. : Mansbach, Buchenau, Werda, Lengsfeld; excepting, how- ever, the following bailiwicks and territories, viz. ; the Bailiwicks of Hammelburg, with Thulba and Saaleck, Briickenau with Motten, Saalmiinster, with Urzel and Sonnerz ; also the part of the Bailiwick of Biberstein, which contains the villages of Batten, Brand, Dietges, Findlos, Liebharts, Melperz, Ober-Bernhardt, Saifferts, and Thaiden, as well as the domain of Holzkirchen, inclosed in the Grand Duchy of Wiirtzburg ; is ceded to His Majesty the King of Prussia, and he shall be put in posses- sion of it within three weeks from and after the ist June of this year.

His Prussian Majesty engages to take upon himself, in proportion to that part of the territory which he obtains by the present Article, his share of the obligations which all the new possessors of the heretofore Grand Duchy of Frankfort will have to fulfil, and to transfer such engage- ments to the Princes with whom His Majesty may hereafter make exchanges or cessions of these districts and territories of the Department of Fulda.

Arrangements relative to the Purchasers of Domains in the Principality of Fulda and the County of Hanau.

ARTICLE XLI. The domains of the Principality of Fulda and of the County of Hanau having been sold to purchasers, who have not as yet made good all their instalments, a Commission shall be named by the Princes to whom the said domains are transferred, to regulate, in an uniform manner, whatever has any reference to this transaction, and to do justice to the claims of the purchasers of the said domains. This Commission shall pay particular attention to the Treaty concluded at Frankfort, on the 2nd December, 1813, between the Allied Powers and His Royal Highness the Elector of Hesse ; and it is laid down as a principle, that in case the sale of these domains should not be considered as binding, the purchasers shall receive back the sums already discharged, and they shall not be obliged to quit before such restitution shall have had its full and entire effect.

60 CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815

Cession of the Town of Wetzlar to His Majesty the King of Prussia.

ARTICLE XLII. The Town and Territory of Wetzlar passes, in all property and Sovereignty, to His Majesty the King of Prussia.

Relations of the Mediatised Districts of the Old Circle of Westphalia with the Prussian Monarchy.

ARTICLE XLIII. The following Mediatised districts, viz. ; the possessions which the Princes of Salm-Salm and Salm-Kyrburg, the Counts called the Rhein- und Wildgrafen, and the Duke of Croy, obtained by the principal Reces of the extraordinary Deputation of the Empire, of the 25th February, 1803, in the old Circle of Westphalia, as well as the Lordships of Anholt and Gehmen, the posses- sions of the Duke of Looz-Corswaren, which are in the same situation (in so far as they are not placed under the Hano- verian Government), the County of Steinfurt, belonging to the Count of Bentheim-Bentheim, the County of Reck- lingshausen, belonging to the Duke of Aremberg, the Lordships of Rheda, Giitersloh, and Gronau, belonging to the Count of Bentheim-Tecklenburg, the County of Ritt- berg, belonging to the Prince of Kaunitz, the Lordships of Neustadt and Gimborn, belonging to the Count of Walmoden, and the Lordship of Homburg, belonging to the Princes of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg, shall be placed in such relations with the Prussian Monarchy as the Federative Constitution of Germany shall regulate for the Mediatised territories.

The possessions of the ancient Nobility (I'Ancienne Noblesse immediate de I'Empire) within the Prussian territory, and particularly the Lordship of Wildenberg, in the Grand Duchy of Berg, and the Barony of Schauen, in the Principality of Halberstadt, shall belong to the Prussian Monarchy.

Cession of the Grand Duchy of Wurtzburg and of the Prin- cipality of Aschaffenburg to the King of Bavaria.

ARTICLE XLIV. His Majesty the King of Bavaria shall possess, for himself, his heirs and successors, in full property and Sovereignty, the Grand Duchy of Wurtzburg, as it

CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815 61

was held by His Imperial Highness the Archduke Ferdinand of Austria, and the Principality of Aschaffenburg, such as it constituted part of the Grand Duchy of Frankfort, under the denomination of Department of Aschaffenburg.

Maintenance of the Prince Primate.

ARTICLE XLV. With respect to the rights and pre- rogatives, and the maintenance of the Prince Primate as an ancient ecclesiastical Prince, it is determined ;

ist. That he shall be treated in a manner analogous to the Articles of the Reces, which, in 1803, regulated the situation of the secularised Princes, and to the practice observed with regard to them.

2ndly. He shall receive for this purpose, dating from the ist of June, 1814, the sum of 100,000 florins, by payments of three months, in good specie, at the rate of 24 florins to the mark, as an annuity.

This annuity shall be paid by the Sovereigns under whose Governments the provinces or districts of the Grand Duchy of Frankfort pass, in proportion to the part which each of them shall possess.

3dly. The advances made by the Prince Primate, from his private purse, to the general chest of the Principality of Fulda, such as they have been liquidated and proved, shall be refunded to him, his heirs, or executors.

This expenditure shall be defrayed in proportions by the Sovereigns who shall possess the provinces and districts composing the Principality of Fulda.

4thly. The furniture and other objects which may be proved to belong to the private property of the Prince Primate, shall be restored to him.

5thly. The officers of the Grand Duchy of Frankfort, as well civil and ecclesiastical as military and diplomatic, shall be treated conformably to the principles of Article LIX of the Reces of the Empire, dated the 25th February, 1803, and from the ist of June the pensions shall be proportion- ably paid by the Sovereigns who enter on the possession of the States which formed the said Grand Duchy since the ist of June, 1814.

6thly. A Commission shall be established without delay, composed of members appointed by the said Sovereigns, to regulate whatever relates to the execution of the dis- positions comprised in this Article.

62 • CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815

7thly. It is understood, that in virtue of this arrange- ment, any claim that might be advanced against the Prince Primate, in his character of Grand Duke of Frankfort, shall be annulled, and that he shall not be molested on account of any reclamation of this nature.

Free Town of Frankfort.

ARTICLE XLVI. The City of Frankfort, with its territory, such as it was in 1803, is declared Free, and shall constitute a part of the Germanic League. Its institutions shall be founded upon the principle of a perfect equality of rights for the different sects of the Christian religion. This equality of rights shall extend to all civil and political rights, and shall be observed in all matters of government and administration. The disputes which may arise, whether in regard to the establishment of the Constitution, or in regard to its maintenance, shall be referred to the Germanic Diet, and can only be decided by the same.1

Indemnities to the Grand Duke of Hesse.

ARTICLE XLVIL His Royal Highness the Grand Duke of Hesse, in exchange for the Duchy of Westphalia, ceded to His Majesty the King of Prussia, obtains a territory on the left bank of the Rhine, in the ancient Department of Mont-Tonnerre, comprising a population of 140,000 inhabi- tants. His Royal Highness shall possess this territory in full Sovereignty and property. He shall likewise obtain the property of that part of the Salt Mines of Kreutznach which is situated on the left bank of the Nahe, but the Sovereignty of them shall remain to Prussia.

Reinstatement of the Landgrave of Hesse-Honiburg.

ARTICLE XLVIII. The Landgrave of Hesse-Homburg is reinstated in his possessions, revenues, rights, and political relations, of which he was deprived in consequence of the Confederation of the Rhine.

» The Free Town of Frankfort was annexed to Prussia by Decree dated September 20, 1866. (See Hertslet's Map of Europe by Treaty, vol. i, p. 240, foot-note.)

CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815 63

Territories reserved for the Houses of Oldenburg, Saxe- Coburg, Meckleriburg-Strelitz, Hesse-Homburg, and the Count of Pappenheim.

ARTICLE XLIX. In the ci-devant Department of the Sarre, on the Frontiers of the States of His Majesty the King of Prussia, there is reserved a district, containing a population of 69,000 souls, to be disposed of in the following manner : — The Duke of Saxe-Coburg and the Duke of Oldenburg shall obtain each a territory comprising 20,000 inhabitants. The Duke of Mecklenburg-Strelitz and the Landgrave of Hesse-Homburg, each a Territory com- prising 10,000 inhabitants ; and the Count of Pappenheim a Territory comprising 9,000 inhabitants.

The territory of the Count of Pappenheim shall be under the Sovereignty of His Prussian Majesty.

Future Arrangements respecting these Territories.

ARTICLE L. The acquisitions assigned by the preceding Article to the Dukes of Saxe-Coburg, Oldenburg, Mecklen- burg-Strelitz, and the Landgrave of Hesse-Homburg, not being contiguous to their respective States, their Majesties the Emperor of Austria, the Emperor of all the Russias, and the Kings of Great Britain and Prussia, promise to employ their good offices, at the close of the present war, or as soon as circumstances shall permit, in order to pro- cure for the said Princes, either by exchanges or any other arrangements, the advantages that they are disposed to insure to them ; and that the administration of the said districts may be rendered less complicated, it is agreed that they shall be provisionally under the Prussian adminis- tration for the benefit of the new proprietors.

Territory on the two Banks of the Rhine ceded to the Emperor

of Austria.

ARTICLE LI. All the territories and possessions, as well on the left bank of the Rhine, in the old Departments of the Sarre and Mont-Tonnerre, as in the former Depart- ments of Fulda and Frankfort, or inclosed in the adjacent countries, placed at the disposal of the Allied Powers by the Treaty of Paris of 3oth May, 1814, and not disposed of by other Articles of the present Treaty, shall pass in full Sovereignty and property, under the Government of His Majesty the Emperor of Austria.

64 CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815

Principality of Isenburg.

ARTICLE LII. The Principality of Isenburg is placed under the Sovereignty of His Imperial and Royal Apostolic Majesty, and shall belong to him, under such limitations as the Federative Constitution of Germany shall regulate for the Mediatised States.

Germanic Confederation.

ARTICLE LIII. 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 Emperor of Austria and the King of Prussia, for all their possessions which anciently belonged to the German Empire ;

The King of Denmark, for the Duchy of Holstein ;

And the King of the Netherlands, for the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg ;

establish among themselves a perpetual Confederation, which shall be called ' The Germanic Confederation '.*

Object of this Confederation.

ARTICLE LIV. The object of this Confederation is the maintenance of the external and internal safety of Germany, and of the Independence and Inviolability of the Con- federated States.

Equality of its Members.

ARTICLE LV. The Members of the Confederation, as such, are equal with regard to their rights ; and they all equally engage to maintain the Act which constitutes their union.

Federative Diet.

ARTICLE LVI. The affairs of the Confederation shall be confided to a Federative Diet, in which all the Members shall vote by their Plenipotentiaries, either individually or collectively, in the following manner, without prejudice to their rank : —

1 The Germanic Confederation was dissolved after the Austro- Prussian War of 1 866, and replaced by the North German Confedera- tion, of which Austria was not a member. This again was replaced, after the Franco-German War of 1870-1, by the German Empire.

CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815 65

1. Austria . . . . .1 Vote.

2. Prussia . . . . . i

3. Bavaria . . . . i

4. Saxony . . . . . i

5. Hanover . . . . . i

6. - Wurtemberg ..... i

7. Baden .... . i

8. Electoral Hesse1 . . . i

9. Grand Duchy of Hesse 2 . . . i

10. Denmark, for Holstein . . . i

11. The Netherlands, for Luxemburg . i

12. Grand-Ducal and Ducal Houses of

Saxony . . . . . i

13. Brunswick and Nassau . . . i

14. Mecklenburg-Schwerin and Strelitz . i

15. Holstein-Oldenburg, Anhalt and

Schwartzburg . . . i ,,

16. Hohenzollern, Liechtenstein, Reuss,

Schaumburg-Lippe, Lippe and Waldeck . . . . i ,,

17. The Free Towns of Lubeck, Frank-

fort, Bremen, and Hamburgh . i ,,

Total. . . . 17 Votes.

• Presidency of Austria.

ARTICLE LVII. Austria shall preside at the Federative Diet. Each State of the Confederation has the right of making propositions, and the presiding State shall bring them under deliberation within a definite time.

Composition of the General Assembly.

ARTICLE LVIII. Whenever fundamental laws are to be enacted, changes made in the fundamental laws of the Confederation, measures adopted relative to the Federative Act itself, and organic institutions or other arrangements made for the common interest, the Diet shall form itself into a General Assembly, and, in that case, the distribution of votes shall be as follows, calculated according to the respective extent of the individual States : —

1 Hesse-Cassel. * Hesse-Darmstadt.

1903 K

66 CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815

Austria shall have

Prussia ....

Saxony ....

Bavaria ....

Hanover ....

Wurtemberg

Baden ....

Electoral Hesse1.

Grand Duchy of Hesse 2

Holstein ....

Luxemburg

Brunswick

Mecklenburg-Schwerin

Nassau ....

Saxe-Weimar .

Saxe-Gotha

Saxe-Coburg

Saxe-Meiningen .

Saxe-Hildburghausen .

Mecklenburg-Strelitz .

Holstein-Oldenburg .

Anhalt-Dessau .

Anhalt-Bernburg

Anhalt-Kothen .

Schwartaburg-Sondershausen

Schwartzburg-Rudolstadt .

Hohenzollern-Heckingen

Liechtenstein .

Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen .

Waldeck ....

Reuss (Elder Branch) 3

Reuss (Younger Branch) 4 .

Schaumburg-Lippe .

Lippe ....

The Free Town of Lubeck . ,, ,, Frankfort

„ ,, Bremen .

,, „ Hamburgh

Total .

Vote.

4 Votes.

4

4

4

4

4

3

3

3

3

3

2

2 2

I

I-

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

69 Votes.

Hesse-Cassel. Reuss-Greitz.

Hesse-Darmstadt. Reuss-Schleitz.

CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815 67

The Diet in deliberating on the organic laws of the Confederation, shall consider whether any collective votes ought to be granted to the ancient Mediatised States of the Empire.

Arrangements relative to the Diet.

ARTICLE LIX. The question, whether a subject is to be discussed by the General Assembly, conformably to the principles above established, shall be decided in the Ordinary Assembly by a majority of votes. The same Assembly shall prepare the drafts of resolutions which are to be proposed to the General Assembly, and shall furnish the latter with all the necessary information, either for adopt- ing or rejecting them.

The plurality of votes shall regulate the decisions, both in the Ordinary and General Assemblies, with this differ- ence, however, that in the Ordinary Assembly, an absolute majority shall be deemed sufficient, while, in the other, two-thirds of the votes shall be necessary to form the majority.

When the votes are even in the Ordinary Assembly, the President shall have the casting vote ; but when the Assembly is to deliberate on the acceptance or change of any of the fundamental laws, upon organic institutions, upon individual rights, or upon affairs of religion, the plurality of votes shall not be deemed sufficient, either in the Ordinary or in the General Assembly.

The Diet is permanent : it may, however, when the subjects submitted to its deliberation are disposed of, adjourn for a fixed period, which shall not exceed four months.

All ulterior arrangements relative to the postponement or the dispatch of urgent business which may arise during the recess shall be reserved for the Diet, which will consider them when engaged in preparing the organic laws.

Order of Voting.

ARTICLE LX. With respect to the order in which the members of the Confederation shall vote, it is agreed, that while the Diet shall be occupied in framing organic laws, there shall be no fixed regulation ; and whatever may be the order observed on such an occasion, it shall neither

F 2

68 CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815

prejudice any of the members, nor establish a precedent for the future. After framing the organic laws, the Diet will deliberate upon the manner of arranging this matter by a permanent regulation, for which purpose it will depart as little as possible from those which have been observed in the ancient Diet, and more particularly accord- ing to the Reels of the Deputation of the Empire in 1803. The order to be adopted shall in no way affect the rank and precedence of the members of the Confederation except in as far as they concern the Diet.

Sittings of Diet to be held at Frankfort.

ARTICLE LXI. The Diet shall assemble at Frankfort on the Maine. Its first meeting is fixed for the ist of September, 1815.

Framing of Fundamental Laws.

ARTICLE LXII. The first object to be considered by the Diet after its opening shall be the framing of the fundamental laws of the Confederation, and of its organic institutions, with respect to its exterior, military, and interior relations.

Maintenance of Peace in Germany.

ARTICLE LXIII. The States of the Confederation engage to defend not only the whole of Germany, but each indi- vidual State of the Union, in case it should be attacked, and they mutually guarantee to each other such of their possessions as are comprised in this Union.

When war shall be declared by the Confederation, no member can open a separate negotiation with the enemy, nor make peace, nor conclude an armistice, without the consent of the other members.

The Confederated States engage, in the same manner, not to make war against each other, on any pretext, nor to pursue their differences by force of arms, but to submit them to the Diet, which will attempt a mediation by means of a Commission. If this should not succeed, and a juridical sentence becomes necessary, recourse shall be had to a well organized Austregal Court (Austragalinstanz) , to the decision of which the contending parties are to submit without appeal.

CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815 69

Confirmation of Particular Arrangements of the Act of the Confederation.

ARTICLE LXIV. The Articles comprised under the title of Particular Arrangements, in the Act of the Germanic Confederation, as annexed to the present General Treaty, both in original and in a French translation, shall have the same force and validity as if they were textually inserted herein.

Kingdom of the Netherlands.

ARTICLE LXV. The ancient United Provinces of the Netherlands and the late Belgic Provinces, both within the limits fixed by the following Article, shall form — together with the countries and territories designated in the same Article, under the Sovereignty of His Royal Highness the Prince of Orange-Nassau, Sovereign Prince of the United Provinces — the Kingdom of the Nether- lands, hereditary in the order of succession already estab- lished by the Act of the Constitution of the said United Provinces. The title and the prerogatives of the Royal dignity are recognised by all the Powers in the House of Orange-Nassau.1

Boundaries of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

ARTICLE LXVI. The line comprising the territories which compose the Kingdom of the Netherlands is deter- mined in the following manner : —

It leaves the sea, and extends along the frontiers of France on the side of the Netherlands, as rectified and fixed by Article III of the Treaty of Paris of the 3oth May, 1814, to the Meuse ; thence along the same frontiers to the old limits of the Duchy of Luxemburg. From this point it follows the direction of the limits between that Duchy and the ancient Bishopric of Liege, till it meets (to the south of Deiffelt) the western limits of that canton, and of that of Malmedy, to the point where the latter reaches the limits between the old Departments of the

1 The Netherlands and Belgium were separated under the pro- visions of the Treaties of 1831 and 1839, when Belgium was estab- lished as an Independent and Neutral State. This matter is subse- quently dealt with in a separate chapter, see page 126.

70

Ourthe and the Roer ; it then follows these limits to where they touch those of the former French Canton of Eupen, in the Duchy of Limburg, and following the western limit of that canton, in a northerly direction, leaving to the right a small part of the former French Canton of Aubel, joins the point of contact of the three old Departments of the Ourthe, the Lower Meuse, and the Roer ; parting again from this point, this line follows that which divides the two latter departments, until it reaches the Worm (a river falling into the Roer), and goes along this river to the point where it again reaches the limit of these two depart- ments, pursues this limit to the south of Hillensberg (the old Department of the Roer), from whence it reascends to the north, and leaving Hillensberg to the right and divid- ing the Canton of Sittard into two nearly equal parts, so that Sittard and Susteren remain on the left, it reaches the old Dutch territory, from whence, leaving this territory to the left, it goes on following its eastern frontier to the point where it touches the old Austrian Principality of Guelders, on the south side of Ruremonde, and directing itself towards the most eastern point of the Dutch territory, to the north of Swalmen, continues to inclose this territory.

Lastly, setting out from the most eastern point it joins that part of the Dutch territory in which Venloo is situated ; that town and its territory being included within it. From thence to the old Dutch frontier near Mook, situated above Genep, the line follows the course of the Meuse at such a distance from the right bank that all the places within 1,000 Rhenish yards (Rheinlandische Ruthen) from it shall belong, with their territories, to the Kingdom of the Netherlands ; it being understood, however, as to the reciprocity of this principle, that the Prussian territory shall not at any point touch the Meuse, or approach it within the distance of 1,000 Rhenish yards.

From the point where the line just described reaches the ancient Dutch frontier, as far as the Rhine, this frontier shall remain essentially the same as it was in 1795, between Cleves and the United Provinces.

This line shall be examined by a Commission, which the Governments of Prussia and the Netherlands shall name without delay, for the purpose of proceeding to the exact determination of the limits, as well of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, as of the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg, specified

CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815 71

in Article LXVIII ; and this Commission, aided by pro- fessional persons, shall regulate everything concerning the hydrotechnical constructions, and other similar points, in the most equitable manner, and the most conformable to the mutual interests of the Prussian States, and of those of the Netherlands. This same arrangement refers to the fixing of limits in the Districts of Kyfwaerd, Lobith, and in the whole territory as far as Kekerdom.

The enclaves of Huissen, Malburg, Lymers, with the town of Sevenaer and Lordship of Weel, shall form a part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands ; and His Prussian Majesty renounces them in perpetuity, for himself, his heirs and successors.

Grand Duchy oj Luxemburg.

ARTICLE LXVII. That part of the old Duchy of Luxem- burg which is comprised in the limits specified in the following Article, is likewise ceded to the Sovereign Prince of the United Provinces, now King of the Netherlands, to be possessed in perpetuity by him and his successors, in full property and Sovereignty. The Sovereign of the Netherlands shall add to his titles that of Grand Duke of Luxemburg, His Majesty reserving to himself the privilege of making such family arrangement between the Princes his sons, relative to the succession to the Grand Duchy, as he shall think conformable to the interests of his monarchy and to his paternal intentions.

The Grand Duchy of Luxemburg, serving as a compensa- tion for the Principalities of Nassau-Dillenburg, Siegen, Hadamar and Dietz, shall form one of the States of the Germanic Confederation ; and the Prince, King of the Netherlands, shall enter into the system of this Confedera- tion as Grand Duke of Luxemburg, with all the prerogatives and privileges enjoyed by the other German Princes.

The Town of Luxemburg, in a military point of view, shall be considered as a Fortress of the Confederation ; the Grand Duke shall, however, retain the right of appoint- ing the Governor and military Commandant of this Fortress, subject to the approbation of the executive power of the Confederation, and under such other conditions as it may be judged necessary to establish, in conformity with the future Constitution of the said Confederation.

72 CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815

Boundaries of the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg.

ARTICLE LXVIII. The Grand Duchy of Luxemburg shall consist of all the territory situated between the King- dom of the Netherlands, as it has been designated by Article LXVI, France, the Moselle, as far as the mouth of the Sure, the course of the Sure, as far as the junction of the Our, and the course of this last river, as far as the limits of the former French Canton of St. Vith, which shall not belong to the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg.1

Arrangements respecting the Duchy of Bouillon.

ARTICLE LXIX. His Majesty the King of the Nether- lands, Grand Duke of Luxemburg, shall possess in per- petuity, for himself and his successors, the full and entire Sovereignty of that part of the Duchy of Bouillon, which is not ceded to France by the Treaty of Paris ; and which, therefore, shall be united to the Grand Duchy of Luxem- burg.

Disputes having arisen with respect to the said Duchy of Bouillon, the competitor who shall legally establish his right, in the manner hereafter specified, shall possess, in full property, the said part of the Duchy, as it was enjoyed by the last Duke, under the Sovereignty of His Majesty the King of the Netherlands, Grand Duke of Luxemburg.

This decision shall be made by Arbitration, and be without appeal. For this purpose there shall be appointed a certain number of arbitrators, one by each of the two competitors, and others, to the number of three, by the Courts of Austria, Prussia, and Sardinia. They shall assemble at Aix-la-Chapelle, as soon as the state of the war and other circumstances may admit of it, and their deter- mination shall be made known within six months from their first meeting.

In the interim, His Majesty the King of the Netherlands, Grand Duke of Luxemburg, shall hold in trust the property of the said part of the Duchy of Bouillon, in order that he may restore it, together with the revenues of the pro- visional administration, to the competitor in whose favour the arbitrators shall decide ; and His said Majesty shall

1 A general Treaty was concluded on May n, 1867, on the subject of the neutrality, &c., of Luxemburg. This matter is subsequently dealt with in a separate Paper ; see p. 256.

CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815 73

indemnify him for the loss of the revenues arising from the rights of Sovereignty, by means of some equitable arrange- ment. Should the restitution fall to Prince Charles of Rohan, this property, when in his possession, shall be regulated by the laws of the substitution which constitutes his title thereto.

Cession to Prussia of the German Possessions of the House of Nassau-Orange.

ARTICLE LXX. His Majesty the King of the Nether- lands renounces, in perpetuity for himself, his heirs, and successors, in favour of His Majesty the King of Prussia, the sovereign possessions which the House of Nassau- Orange held in Germany, namely, the Principalities of Dillenburg, Dietz, Siegen, and Hadamar, with the Lord- ships of Beilstein, such as those possessions have been definitively arranged between the two branches of the House of Nassau, by the Treaty concluded at the Hague on the I4th July, 1814.

His Majesty also renounces the Principality of Fulda, and the other districts and territories which were secured to him by Article XII of the Principal Reces of the Extra- ordinary Deputation of the Empire of the 25th of February, 1803.

Family Pact between the Princes of Nassau.

ARTICLE LXXI. The right and order of Succession, established between the two branches of the House of Nassau, by the Act of 1783, called Nassauischer Erbverein, is confirmed, and transferred from the four Principalities of Orange-Nassau to the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg.

Charges and Engagements pertaining to the Provinces detached from France.

ARTICLE LXXII. His Majesty the King of the Nether- lands, in uniting under his Sovereignty the Countries designated in Articles LXVI and LXVIII, enters into all the rights, and takes upon himself all the charges and all the stipulated engagements, relative to the Provinces and Districts detached from France by the Treaty of Peace concluded at Paris the 30th May, 1814.

74 CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815

Act of Re-union of the Belgic Provinces.

ARTICLE LXXIII. His Majesty the King of the Nether- lands, having recognised and sanctioned, under date of the 2ist July, 1814, as the Basis of the Union of the Belgic Provinces with the United Provinces, the 8 Articles con- tained in the document annexed to the present Treaty, the said Articles shall have the same force and validity as if they were inserted, word for word, in the present Instrument.1

Integrity of the Nineteen Cantons of Switzerland.

ARTICLE LXXI V. The integrity of the Nineteen Cantons, as they existed in a political body, from the signature of the Convention of the 2gth December, 1813, is recognised as the basis of the Helvetic system.

Union of Three new Cantons.

ARTICLE LXXV. The Valais, the territory of Geneva, and the Principality of Neufchatel, are united to Switzer- land, and shall form Three new Cantons.

La Vallee des Dappes, having formed part of the Canton of Vaud, is restored to it.

Union of Bishopric of Basle, and Town and Territory of Bienne, with Canton of Berne.

ARTICLE LXXVI. The Bishopric of Basle, and the city and territory of Bienne, shall be united to the Helvetic Confederation, and shall form part of the Canton of Berne.

The following districts, however, are excepted from this last arrangement :

1. A District of about three square leagues in extent, including the Communes of Altschweiler, Schonbach, Ober- weiler, Terweiler, Ettingen, Fiirstenstein, Plotten, Pf effingen, Aesch, Bruck, Reinach, Arlesheim ; which District shall be united to the Canton of Basle.

2. A small Enclave, situated near the Neufchatel village of Lignieres, which is at present, with respect to civil jurisdiction, dependant upon the Canton of Neufchatel, and with respect to criminal jurisdiction upon that of the Bishopric of Basle, shall belong in full Sovereignty to the Principality of Neufchatel.

1 See foot-note to Article LXV.

CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815 75

Rights of Inhabitants of Countries united with Canton of Berne.

ARTICLE LXXVII. The inhabitants of the Bishopric of Basle, and those of Bienne, united to the Cantons of Berne and Basle, shall enjoy, in every respect, without any dis- tinction of Religion (which shall be maintained in its present state) the same political and civil rights which are enjoyed, or may be enjoyed, by the inhabitants of the ancient parts of the said cantons ; they shall, therefore, be equally competent to become candidates for the places of Repre- sentatives, and for all other appointments, according to the constitution of the cantons. Such municipal privileges as are compatible with the constitution and the general regulations of the Canton of Berne, shall be preserved to the town of Bienne, and to the villages that formed part of its jurisdiction.

The sale of the national domains shall be confirmed, and the feudal rights and tithes cannot be re-established.

The respective Acts of the union shall be framed, con- formably to the principles above declared, by Commissions, composed of an equal number of deputies from each of the directing parties concerned. Those from the Bishopric of Basle shall be chosen by the canton from amongst the most eminent citizens of the country. The said Acts shall be guaranteed by the Swiss Confederation. All points upon which the parties cannot agree, shall be decided by a court of Arbitration, to be named by the Diet.

Restoration of Lordship of Raziins to the Canton of Grisons.

ARTICLE LXXVIII. The cession, made by Article III of the Treaty of Vienna, of the I4th October, 1809, of the Lordship of Raziins, inclosed in the country of the Grisons, having expired ; and His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, being restored to all the rights attached to the said posses- sion, confirms the disposition which he made of it, by a Declaration, dated the 20th March, 1815, in favour of the Canton of the Grisons.

Arrangements between France and Geneva. ARTICLE LXXIX. In order to ensure the commercial and military communications of the Town of Geneva with the Canton of Vaud, and the rest of Switzerland ; and

76 CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815

with a view to fulfil, in that respect, Article IV of the Treaty of Paris of the soth May, 1814, His Most Christian Majesty consents so to place the line of custom-houses, that the road which leads from Geneva into Switzerland by Versoy, shall at all times be free, and that neither the post nor travellers, nor the transport of merchandise, shall be interrupted by any examination of the officers of the Customs, nor subjected to any duty.

It is equally understood that the passage of Swiss troops on this road shall not, in any manner, be obstructed.

In the additional regulations to be made on this subject, the execution of the Treaties relative to the free com- munication between the town of Geneva and the jurisdic- tion of Peney, shall be assured in the manner most con- venient to the inhabitants of Geneva. His Most Christian Majesty also consents that the gendarmerie and militia of Geneva, after having communicated on the subject with the nearest military post of the French gendarmerie, shall pass on the high road of Meyrin, to and from the said jurisdiction and the town of Geneva.

Cessions by the King of Sardinia to the Canton of Geneva.

ARTICLE LXXX. His Majesty the King of Sardinia cedes that part of Savoy which is situated between the river Arve, the Rhone, the limits of that part of Savoy ceded to France, and the mountain of Saleve, as far as Veiry inclusive, together with that part which lies between the high road called that of the Simplon, .the Lake of Geneva, and the present territory of the canton of Geneva, from Venezas to the point where the river Hermancc crosses the said road ; and from thence, following the course of that river to where it enters the Lake of Geneva, to the east of the village of Hermance (the whole of the road of the Simplon continuing to be possessed by His Majesty the King of Sardinia) in order that these countries shall be united (reunis) to the canton of Geneva ; with the reservation, however, of determining more precisely, by Commissioners respectively, their limits, particularly that part which relates to the demarcation above Veiry and on the mountain of Saleve ; His said Majesty renounc- ing for himself and his successors, in perpetuity, without exception or reservation, all rights of Sovereignty, or other

CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815 77

rights which may belong to him in the places and territories comprised within this demarcation.

His Majesty the King of Sardinia also agrees, that the communication between the canton of Geneva and the Valais, by the road of the Simplon, shall be established, in the same manner as it has been agreed to by France, between Geneva and the canton of Vaud, by the route of Versoy. A free communication shall also be at all times granted for the Genevese troops, between the territory of Geneva and the jurisdiction of Jussy, and such facilities shall be allowed as may be necessary for proceeding by the lake to the road of the Simplon.

On the other hand, an exemption from all duties of transit shall be granted for all merchandise and goods which, coming from the States of His Majesty the King of Sardinia and the Free Port of Genoa, shall traverse the road called the Simplon in its whole extent, through the Valais and the State of Geneva. This exemption shall, however, be confined to the transit, and shall extend neither to the tolls established for the maintenance of the road, nor to duties levied on merchandise or goods intended to be sold or consumed in the interior. The same reserva- tion shall apply to the communication granted to the Swiss between the Valais and the canton of Geneva ; and the different Governments shall for this purpose take such measures as, by common agreement, they shall judge necessary, either for taxation or for preventing contraband trade in their territories, respectively.

Compensations between the Old and the New Cantons.

ARTICLE LXXXI. With a view to the establishing of reciprocal compensations, the Cantons of Argovia, Vaud, Tessin, and St. Gall, shall furnish to the ancient Cantons of Schweitz, Unterwald, Uri, Claris, Zug and Appenzell (Rhode Interieure] a sum of money to be applied to pur- poses of public instruction, and to the expenses of general administration, but principally to the former object, in the said cantons.

The quota, manner of payment, and division of this pecuniary compensation, are fixed as follows : —

The Cantons of Argovia, Vaud, and St. Gall shall furnish to the Cantons of Schweitz, Unterwald, Uri, Zug, Claris,

78 CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815

and Appenzell (Rhode Interieure) , a fund of 500,000 Swiss livres.

Each of the former cantons shall pay the interest of its quota, at the rate of 5 per cent, per annum, or have the option of discharging the principal, either in money or funded property.

The division, either of the payment or receipt of these funds, shall be made according to the scale of contributions laid down for providing the federal expenses.

The Canton of Tessin shall pay every year to the Canton of Uri, a moiety of the produce of the tolls in the Levantine Valley.

Arrangements respecting Funds invested in England.

ARTICLE LXXXII. To put an end to the discussions which have arisen, with respect to the funds placed in England by the Cantons of Zurich and Berne, it is deter- mined :

1. That the Cantons of Berne and Zurich shall preserve the property of the funded capital as it existed in 1803, at the period of the dissolution of the Helvetic Government, and shall receive the interest thereof, from the ist January,

1815 ;

2. That the accumulated interest due since the year 1798, up to the year 1814, inclusive, shall be applied to the payment of the remaining capital of the national debt, known under the denomination of the Helvetic debt ;

3. That the surplus of the Helvetic debt shall remain at the charge of the other cantons, those of Berne and Zurich being exonerated by the above arrangement. The quota of each of the cantons which remain charged with this surplus, shall be calculated and paid according to the proportion fixed for the contributions destined to defray federal expenses. The countries incorporated with Switzer- land since 1813 shall not be assessed on account of the old Helvetic debt.

If it shall happen that an overplus remains after dis- charging the above debt, that overplus shall be divided between the Cantons of Berne and Zurich, in the proportion of their respective capitals.

The same regulations shall be observed with regard to those other debts, the documents concerning which are deposited in the custody of the President of the Diet.

CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815 79

Indemnity to Proprietors of ' Lauds '.

ARTICLE LXXXIII. To conciliate disputes respecting Lauds abolished without indemnification, an indemnity shall be given to persons who are owners of such Lauds ; and for the purpose of avoiding all further differences on this subject between the Cantons of Berne and Vaud, the latter shall pay to the Government of Berne the sum of 300,000 Swiss livres, which shall be shared between the Bernese claimants, proprietors of Lauds. The payments shah* be made at the rate of a fifth part each year, com- mencing from the ist January, 1816.

Confirmation of the Declaration of2oth March, 1815, relative to the affairs of Switzerland.

ARTICLE LXXXIV. The Declaration of the 20th March, addressed by the Allied Powers who signed the Treaty of Paris, to the Diet of the Swiss Confederation, and accepted by the Diet through the Act of Adhesion of the 27th May, is confirmed in the whole of its tenor ; and the principles established, as also the arrangements agreed upon, in the said Declaration, shall be invariably maintained.

Boundaries of the States of the King of Sardinia.

ARTICLE LXXXV. The frontiers of the States of His Majesty the King of Sardinia shall be : —

On the side of France, such as they were on the ist of January, 1792, with the exception of the changes effected by the Treaty of Paris of the 30th May, 1814 ;

On the side of the Helvetic Confederation, such as they existed on the ist of January 1792, with the exception of the change produced by the cession in favour of the Canton of Geneva, as specified by Article LXXX of the present Act;

On the side of the States of His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, such as they existed on the ist of January, 1792 ; and the Convention concluded between their Majesties the Empress Maria Theresa and the King of Sardinia, on the 4th October, 1751, shall be reciprocally confirmed in all its stipulations ;

On the side of the States of Parma and Placentia, the frontier as far as it concerns the ancient States of the King

8o CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815

of Sardinia, shall continue to be the same as they were on the ist of January, 1792.

The borders of the former States of Genoa, and of the countries called Imperial Fiefs, united to the States of Hie Majesty the King of Sardinia, according to the follow- ing Articles, shall be the same as those which, on the ist of January, 1792, separated those countries from the States of Parma and Placentia, and from those of Tuscany and Massa.

The island of Capraja, having belonged to the ancient republic of Genoa, is included in the cession of the States of Genoa, to His Majesty the King of Sardinia.

Union of the States of Genoa with the States of the King of Sardinia.

ARTICLE LXXXVI. The States which constituted the former republic of Genoa, are united in perpetuity to those of His Majesty the King of Sardinia, to be, like the latter, possessed by him in full Sovereignty and hereditary property ; and to descend, in the male line, in the order of primogeniture, to the two branches of his house, viz. : the royal branch, and the branch of Savoy-Carignan.

Title of Duke of Genoa.

ARTICLE LXXXVII. The King of Sardinia shall add to his present titles, that of Duke of Genoa.

Rights and Privileges of the Genoese.

ARTICLE LXXXVIII. The Genoese shall enjoy all the rights and privileges, specified in this Act, intituled ' Con- ditions which are to serve as the basis of the Union of the Genoese States to those of His Sardinian Majesty ', and the said Act, such as it is annexed to this General Treaty, shall be considered as an integral part thereof, and shall have the same force and validity as if it were textually inserted in the present Article.

Union of the Imperial Fiefs. .

ARTICLE LXXXIX. The countries called Imperial Fiefs, formerly united to the ancient Ligurian Republic, are definitely united to the States of His Majesty the King of

CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815 81

Sardinia, in the same manner as the rest of the Genoese States ; and the inhabitants of these countries shall enjoy the same rights and privileges as those of the States of Genoa, specified in the preceding Article.

Right of Fortifying.

ARTICLE XC. The right that the Powers who signed the Treaty of Paris of the soth May, 1814, reserved to them- selves by Article III of that Treaty, of fortifying such points of their States as they might judge proper for their safety, is equally reserved, without restriction, to His Majesty the King of Sardinia.

Cession by the King of Sardinia to the Canton of Geneva.

ARTICLE XCI. His Majesty the King of Sardinia cedes to the Canton of Geneva the districts of Savoy, designated in Article LXXX above recited, according to the con- ditions specified in the Act, intituled ' Cession made by His Majesty the King of Sardinia to the Canton of Geneva '. This Act shall be considered as an integral part of this General Treaty, to which it is annexed, and shall have the same force and validity as if it were textually inserted in the present Article.1

Neutrality of Chablais and Faucigny.

ARTICLE XCI I. The Provinces of Chablais and Faucigny, and the whole of the territory of Savoy to the north of Ugine, belonging to His Majesty the King of Sardinia, shall form a part of the Neutrality of Switzerland, as it is recognised and guaranteed by the Powers.

Whenever, therefore, the neighbouring Powers to Switzer- land are in a state of open or impending hostility, the troops of His Majesty the King of Sardinia which may be in those provinces, shall retire, and may for that purpose pass through the Valais, if necessary. No other armed troops of any other Power shall have the privilege of passing through or remaining in the said territories and provinces, excepting those which the Swiss Confederation shall think proper to place there ; it being well under- stood that this state of things shall not in any manner

1 Savoy and Nice were ceded to France by Sardinia by the Treaty between those two Powers of March 24, 1860.

82 CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815

interrupt the administration of these countries, in which the civil agents of His Majesty the King of Sardinia may likewise employ the municipal guard, for the preservation of good order.

Designation of the Territories of which the Emperor of Austria resumes possession on the side of Italy.

ARTICLE XCIII. In pursuance of the Renunciations agreed upon by the Treaty of Paris of the 30th May, 1814, the Powers who sign the present Treaty recognise His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, his heirs and successors, as legitimate Sovereign of the Provinces and Territories which had been ceded, either wholly or in part, by the Treaties of Campo-Formio of 1797, of LuneVille of 1801, of Presburg of 1805, by the additional Convention of Fontainebleau of 1807, and by the Treaty of Vienna of 1809 ; the possession of which provinces and territories His Imperial and Royal Apostolic Majesty obtained in consequence of the last war ; such as, Istria, Austrian as well as heretofore Venetian, Dalmatia, the ancient Venetian Isles of the Adriatic, the Mouths of the Cattaro, the City of Venice, with its waters, as well as all the other pro- vinces and districts of the formerly Venetian States of the Terra Firma upon the left bank of the Adige, the Duchies of Milan and Mantua, the Principalities of Brixen and Trente, the County of Tyrol, the Vorarlberg, the Austrian Frioul, the ancient Venetian Frioul, the territory of Monte- falcone, the Government and Town of Trieste, Carniola, Upper Carinthia, Croatia on the right of the Save, Fiume and the Hungarian Littorale, and the District of Castua.1

Territories united to the Austrian Monarchy.

ARTICLE XCIV. His Imperial and Royal Apostolic Majesty shall unite to his monarchy, to be possessed by him and his successors in full property and Sovereignty : —

i. Besides the portions of the Terra Firma in the Venetian States mentioned in the preceding Article, the other parts of those States, as well as all other territories situated between the Tessino, the Po, and the Adriatic Sea.

1 By Article III of the Treaty of Peace between Austria and Italy of October 3, 1866. the Lombardo-Venetian Kingdom was united to the Kingdom of Italy.

CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815 83

2. The Vallies of the Valteline, of Bormio, and of Chia- venna.

3. The territories which formerly composed the Republic of Ragusa.

Austrian Frontiers in Italy.

ARTICLE XCV. In consequence of the stipulations agreed upon in the preceding Articles, the frontiers of the States of His Imperial and Apostolic Majesty, in Italy, shall be : —

1. On the side of the States of His Majesty the King of Sardinia, such as they were on the ist of January, 1792 ;

2. On the side of the States of Parma, Placentia, and Guastalla, the course of the Po, the line of demarcation following the Thalweg of the River ;

3. On the side of the States of Modena, such as they were on ist of January, 1792 ;

4. On the side of the Papal States, the course of the Po, as far as the mouth of the Goro ;

5. On the side of Switzerland, the ancient frontier of Lombardy, and that which separates the Vallies of the Valteline, of Bormio, and Chiavenna, from the Cantons of the Grisons and the Tessino.

In those places where the Thalweg of the Po forms the frontier, it is agreed, that the changes which the course of the river may undergo shall not, in future, in any way affect the property of the Islands therein contained.

Navigation of the. Po.

ARTICLE XCVI. The general principles, adopted by the Congress at Vienna, for the Navigation of Rivers, shall be applicable to that of the Po.

Commissioners shall be named by the States bordering on rivers, within three months at latest after the termina- tion of the Congress, to regulate all that concerns the execution of the present Article.

Arrangements respecting the Mont-Napoleon at Milan.

ARTICLE XCVIL As it is indispensable to preserve, to the establishment known by the name of the Mont- Napoleon at Milan, the means of fulfilling its engagements towards its creditors ; it is agreed, that the landed and other immovable property of this establishment, in countries

c z

84 CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815

which formed part of the ancient Kingdom of Italy, and have since passed under the government of different Princes of Italy, as well as the capital belonging to the said establishment placed out at interest in these different countries, shall be appropriated to the same object.

The unfunded and unliquidated debts of the Mont- Napoleon, such as those arising from the arrears of its charges, or from any other increase of the outgoings of this establishment, shall be divided between the territories which composed the late Kingdom of Italy ; and this division shall be regulated according to the joint bases of their population and revenue.

The Sovereigns of the said countries shall appoint Com- missioners, within the space of three months, dating from the termination of the Congress, to arrange with Austrian Commissioners whatever relates to this object. This Commission shall assemble at Milan.

Estates of Modena and of Massa and Carrara.

ARTICLE XCVIII. His Royal Highness the Archduke Francis d'Este, his heirs and successors, shall possess, in full Sovereignty, the Duchies of Modena, Reggio, and Mirandola, such as they existed at the signature of the Treaty at Campo-Formio.1

The Archduchess Maria Beatrice d'Este, her heirs and successors, shall possess, in full Sovereignty and property, the Duchy of Massa and the Principality of Carrara, as well as the Imperial Fiefs in La Lunigiana.

The latter may be applied to the purpose of exchanges, or other arrangements made by common consent, and according to mutual convenience, with His Imperial High- ness the Grand Duke of Tuscany.

The rights of Succession and Reversion, established in the branches of the Archducal Houses of Austria, relative to the Duchies of Modena, Reggio, and Mirandola, and the Principalities of Massa and Carrara, are preserved.

Parma and Placentia.2

ARTICLE XCIX. Her Majesty the Empress Maria Louisa shall possess, in full property and Sovereignty, the Duchies of Parma, Placentia, and Guastalla, with the exception of

1 Treaty of Campo-Forraio between France and Austria, 1797. 8 Piacenza.

CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815 85

the districts lying within the States of His Imperial and Royal Apostolic Majesty on the left bank of the Po.

The Reversion of these countries shall be regulated by common consent, with the Courts of Austria, Russia, France, Spain, England and Prussia ; due regard being had to the rights of Reversion of the House of Austria, and of His Majesty the King of Sardinia, to the said countries.1

Possessions of the Grand Duke of Tuscany.

ARTICLE C. His Imperial Highness the Archduke Ferdinand of Austria is re-established, himself, his heirs and successors, in all the rights of Sovereignty and pro- perty, in the Grand Duchy of Tuscany and its dependencies, which he possessed previous to the Treaty of Luneville.2

The stipulations of the second Article of the Treaty of Vienna, of the 3rd October, I735,3 between the Emperor Charles VI and the King of France, to which the other Powers acceded, are fully renewed in favour of His Imperial Highness and his descendants, as well as the guarantees resulting from those stipulations.

There shall be likewise united to the said Grand Duchy, to be possessed in full property and Sovereignty by the Grand Duke Ferdinand, his heirs and descendants ; —

1. The State of the Presidii.

2. That part of the Island of Elba, and its appurtenances, which were under the Suzeraincti of His Majesty the King of the Two Sicilies before the year 1801.

3. The Suzerainete and Sovereignty of the Principality of Piombino and its dependencies.

Prince Ludovisi Buoncompagni shall retain, for himself and his legitimate successors, all the property which his family possessed in the Principality of Piombino, and in the Island of Elba and its dependencies, previously to the occupation of those countries by the French troops in 1799, together with the mines, foundries, and salt mines.

The Prince Ludovisi shall likewise preserve his right of Fishery, and enjoy an entire exemption from duties, as well for the exportation of the produce of his Mines,

1 Parma was united to Sardinia by Decree of March 18, 1860. 1 Treaty of Luneville between France and Austria, 1801. ' For Article II of this treaty, see State Papers, vol. ii, p. 48, foot-note.

86 CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815

foundries, salt mines, and domains, as for the importation of Wood and other articles necessary for working the mines : he shall also be indemnified by His Imperial Highness the Grand Duke of Tuscany, for all the revenues the family of the latter derived from the crown duties before the year 1801. In case any difficulties should arise in the valuation of this indemnity, the parties concerned shall refer the decision to the Courts of Vienna- and Sar- dinia.

4. The late Imperial Fiefs of Vernio, Montanto, and Monte Santa Maria, lying within the Tuscan States.1

Duchy of Lucca.

ARTICLE CI. The Principality of Lucca shall be possessed in full Sovereignty by Her Majesty the Infanta Maria Louisa, and her descendants, in the direct male line.

The Principality is erected into a Duchy, and shall have a form of government founded upon the principles of that which it received in 1805.

An Annuity of 500,000 francs shall be added to the revenue of the Principality of Lucca, which His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, and His Imperial Highness the Grand Duke of Tuscany, engage to pay regularly, as long as circumstances do not admit of procuring another establishment for Her Majesty the Infanta Maria Louisa, her son, and his descendants. This annuity shall be specially mortgaged upon the Lordships in Bohemia, known by the name of Bavaro Palatines ; which, in case of the Duchy of Lucca reverting to the Grand Duke of Tuscany, shall be freed from this charge, and shall again form a part of the private domain of His Imperial and Royal Apostolic Majesty.2

Reversion of the Duchy of Lucca.

ARTICLE CII. The Duchy of Lucca shall revert to the Grand Duke of Tuscany ; either in case of its becoming vacant by the death of Her Majesty the Infanta Maria Louisa, or of her son Don Carlos, and of their direct male descendants ; or in case the Infanta Maria Louisa or her

1 Tuscany was united to the Kingdom of Sardinia by Decree of March 22, 1860.

* Lucca was ceded to Tuscany by Treaty of October 4, 1847, and Tuscany was annexed to Sardinia by Decree of March 22, 1860.

CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815 87

direct heirs should obtain any other establishment, or succeed to another branch of their dynasty.

The Grand Duke of Tuscany, however, engages, should the said Reversion fall to him, to cede to the Duke of Modena, as soon as he shall have entered into possession of the Principality of Lucca, the following territories : —

1. The Tuscan districts of Fivizano, Pietra Santa, and Barga.

2. The Lucca districts of Castiglione and Gallicano, lying within the States of Modena, as well as those of Minucciano and Monte-Ignose, contiguous to the country of Massa.

Arrangements relative to the Holy See.

ARTICLE CIII. The Marches, with Camerino, and their dependencies, as well as the Duchy of Benevento and the Principality of Ponte-Corvo, are restored to the Holy See.

The Holy See shall resume possession of the Legations of Ravenna, Bologna, and Ferrara, with the exception of that part of Ferrara which is situate on the left bank of the Po.

His Imperial and Royal Apostolic Majesty and his successors shall have the right of placing Garrisons at Ferrara and Commachio.

The inhabitants of the countries who return under the Government of the Holy See, in consequence of the stipula- tions of Congress, shall enjoy the benefit of Article XVI of the Treaty of Paris of the 3oth May, 1814.

All acquisitions made by individuals, in virtue of a title acknowledged as legal by the existing laws, are to be considered as good, and the arrangements necessary for the guarantee of the public debt and the payment of pensions shall be settled by a particular Convention between the Courts of Rome and Vienna.1

Restoration of King Ferdinand IV at Naples.

ARTICLE CIV. His Majesty King Ferdinand IV, his heirs and successors, is restored to the throne of Naples, and His Majesty is acknowledged by the Powers as King of the Two Sicilies.

1 The Marches were annexed to Sardinia by Decree of December 17, 1860.

88 CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815

Affairs of Portugal. Restitution of the Town of Olivenfa.

ARTICLE CV. The Powers, recognising the justice of the claims of His Royal Highness the Prince Regent of Portugal and the Brazils, upon the Town of Olivenca, and the other territories ceded to Spain by the Treaty of Badajos of 1801, and viewing the restitution of the same as a measure necessary to insure that perfect and constant harmony between the Two Kingdoms of the Peninsula, the pre- servation of which in all parts of Europe has been the constant object of their arrangements, formally engage to use their utmost endeavours by amicable means, to procure the retrocession of the said territories in favour of Portugal. And the Powers declare, as far as depends upon them, that this arrangement shall take place as soon as possible.1

Relations between France and Portugal.

ARTICLE CVI. In order to remove the difficulties which opposed the Ratification on the part of His Royal Highness the Prince Regent of the Kingdoms of Portugal and the Brazils, of the Treaty signed on the 3Oth of May, 1814, between Portugal and France ; it is determined that the stipulations contained in Article X of that Treaty, and all those which relate to it, shall be of no effect, and that with the consent of all the Powers the provisions contained in the following Article shall be substituted for them, and which shall alone be considered as valid : with this excep- tion, all the other clauses of the above Treaty of Paris shall be maintained, and regarded as mutually binding on the Two Courts.

Restitution of French Guiana.

ARTICLE CVII. His Royal Highness the Prince Regent of the Kingdoms of Portugal and the Brazils, wishing to give an unequivocal proof of his high consideration for His Most Christian Majesty, engages to restore French Guiana to His said Majesty, as far as the river Oyapock, the mouth of which is situated between the fourth and fifth degree of north latitude, and which has always been considered by Portugal as the Limit appointed by the Treaty of Utrecht.

1 This arrangement was never carried out.

CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815 89

The period for giving up this Colony shall be determined, as soon as circumstances shall permit, by a Particular Convention between the two Courts ; and they shall enter into an amicable arrangement, as soon as possible, with regard to the definitive demarcation of the limits of Portuguese and French Guiana, conformably to the precise meaning of Article VIII of the Treaty of Utrecht.

Navigation of Rivers traversing different States.

ARTICLE CVIII. The Powers whose States are separated or crossed by the same navigable River engage to regulate, by common consent, all that regards its navigation. For this purpose they will name Commissioners, who shall assemble, at latest, within 6 months after the termination of the Congress, and who shall adopt, as the bases of their proceedings, the Principles established by the following Articles.

Freedom of Navigation.

ARTICLE CIX. The navigation of the Rivers, along their whole course, referred to in the preceding Article, from the point where each of them becomes navigable, to its mouth, shall be entirely free, and shall not, in respect to Commerce, be prohibited to any one ; it being understood that the Regulations established with regard to the Police of this navigation shall be respected, as they will be framed alike for all, and as favourable as possible to the Commerce of all nations.

Uniformity of System for Collection of Dues.

ARTICLE CX. The system that shall be established both for the collection of the Duties and for the maintenance of the Police, shall be, as nearly as possible, the same along the whole course of the River ; and shall also extend, unless particular circumstances prevent it, to those of its Branches and Junctions, which, in their navigable course, separate or traverse different States.

Regulation of the Tariff.

ARTICLE CXI. The Duties on navigation shall be regulated in an uniform and settled manner, and with as little reference as possible to the different quality of the

go CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815

merchandise, in order that a minute examination of the cargo may be rendered unnecessary, except with a view to prevent fraud and evasion. The amount of the Duties, which shall in no case exceed those now paid, shall be determined by local circumstances, which scarcely allow of a general rule in this respect. The Tariff shall, however, be prepared in such a manner as to encourage commerce by facilitating navigation ; for which purpose the Duties established upon the Rhine, and now in force on that River, may serve as an approximating rule for its con- struction.

The Tariff once settled, no increase shall take place therein, except by the common consent of the States bordering on the Rivers ; nor shall the navigation be burdened with any other Duties than those fixed in the Regulation.

Offices for Collection of Dues.

ARTICLE CXII. The Offices for the collection of Duties, the number of which shall be reduced as much as possible, shall be determined upon in the above Regulation, and no change shall afterwards be made, but by common consent, unless any of the States bordering on the Rivers should wish to diminish the number of those which exclusively belong to the same.

Towing Paths.

ARTICLE CXIII. Each State bordering on the Rivers is to be at the expense of keeping in good repair the Towing Paths which pass through its territory, and of maintaining the necessary works through the same extent in the channels of the river, in order that no obstacle may.be experienced to the navigation.

The intended Regulation shall determine the manner in which the States bordering on the Rivers are to participate in these latter works, where the opposite banks belong to different Governments. .

Port and Harbour Dues.

ARTICLE CXIV. There shall nowhere be established Store-house, Port, or Forced Harbour Duties (Droits d'etape, d'echelle et de reldche forcee}. Those already existing shall be preserved for such time only, as the States bordering

CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815 91

on Rivers (without regard to the local interest of the place or the country where they are established) shall find them necessary or useful to navigation and commerce in general.

Custom-Houses.

ARTICLE CXV. The Custom-Houses belonging to the States bordering on Rivers shall not interfere in the duties of navigation. Regulations shall be established to prevent officers of the Customs, in the exercise of their functions, throwing obstacles in the way of the navigation ; but care shall be taken, by means of a strict Police on the bank, to preclude every attempt of the inhabitants to smuggle goods, through the medium of boatmen.

General Regulations to be drawn up.

ARTICLE CXVI. Everything expressed in the preceding Articles shall be settled by a general arrangement, in which there shall also be comprised whatever may need an ulterior determination.

The arrangement once settled, shall not be changed, but by and with the consent of all the States bordering on Rivers, and they shall take care to provide for its execu- tion with due regard to circumstances and locality.

Confirmation of Particular Regulations respecting the Naviga- tion of the Rhine, the Neckar, the Maine, the Moselle, the Meuse, and the Scheldt.

ARTICLE CXVII. The Particular Regulations relative to the navigation of the Rhine, the Neckar, the Maine, the Moselle, the Meuse, and the Scheldt, such as they are annexed to the present Act, shall have the same force and validity as if they were textually inserted herein.

Confirmation of the Treaties and Particular Acts annexed to the General Treaty.

ARTICLE CXVIII. The Treaties, Conventions, Declara- tions, Regulations, and other particular Acts which are annexed to the present Act, viz. : —

i. The Treaty between Russia and Austria, of the 2ist April/3rd May, 1815 ;

92 CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815

2. The Treaty between Russia and Prussia, of the 2ist April/3rd May, 1815 ;

3. The Additional Treaty, relative to Cracow, between Austria, Prussia, and Russia, of the 2ist April/3rd May,

1815;

4. The Treaty between Prussia and Saxony of the i8th May, 1815 ;

5. The Declaration of the King of Saxony respecting the rights of the House of Schonburg, of the i8th May, 1815 ;

6. The Treaty between Prussia and Hanover, of the 29th May, 1815 ;

7. The Convention between Prussia and the Grand Duke of Saxe- Weimar, of the ist June, 1815 ;

8. The Convention between Prussia and the Duke and Prince of Nassau, of the 3ist May, 1815 ;

9. The Act concerning the Federative Constitution of Germany, of the 8th June, 1815 ;

10. The Treaty between the King of the Netherlands, and Prussia, England, Austria, and Russia, of the 3ist May, 1815 ;

11. The Declaration of the Powers on the Affairs of the Helvetic Confederation of the 2oth March ; and the Act of Accession of the Diet of the 27th May, 1815 ;

12. The Protocol of the 29th March, 1815, on the Cessions made by the King of Sardinia to the Canton of Geneva ;

13. The Treaty between the King of Sardinia, Austria, England, Russia, Prussia, and France, of the 20th May,

1815;

14. The Act entitled ' Conditions which are to serve as the Basis of the Union of the States of Genoa with those of His Sardinian Majesty ' ;

15. The Declaration of the Powers on the Abolition of the Slave Trade, of the- 8th February, 1815 ;

16. The Regulations respecting the Free Navigation of Rivers ;

17. The Regulation concerning the Precedence of Diplo- matic Agents ;

shall be considered as integral parts of the Arrangements of the Congress, and shall have, throughout, the same force and validity as if they were inserted, word for word, in the General Treaty.

CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815 93

Invitation to the Powers assembled in Congress to accede to the General Treaty.

ARTICLE CXIX. All the Powers assembled in Congress, as well as the Princes and Free Towns, who have concurred in the arrangements specified, and in the Acts confirmed, in this General Treaty, are invited to accede to it.

Reservations as to the use of the French Language in the drawing up of this Act.

ARTICLE CXX. The French Language having been exclusively employed in all the copies of the present Treaty, it is declared, by the Powers who have concurred in this Act, that the use made of that Language shall not be con- strued into a Precedent for the future ; every Power, there- fore, reserves to itself the adoption in future Negociations and Conventions, of the Language it has heretofore em- ployed in its diplomatic relations ; and this Treaty shall not be cited as a Precedent contrary to the established practice.

Ratification of the Treaty and Deposit of the Original in the Archives of the Court and State at Vienna.

ARTICLE CXXI. The present Treaty shall be ratified, and the Ratifications exchanged in six months, and by the Court of Portugal in a year, or sooner, if possible.

A copy of this General Treaty shall be deposited in the Archives of the Court and State of His Imperial and Royal Apostolic Majesty, at Vienna, in case any of the Courts of Europe shall think proper to consult the original text of this Instrument.

In faith of which the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed this Act, and have affixed thereunto the Seals of their Arms.

Done at Vienna, the gth of June, in the year of Our Lord, 1815.

(The Signatures follow in the Alphabetical Order of the Courts.)

AUSTRIA,

(L.S.) LE PRINCE DE METTERNICH. (L.S.) LE BARON DE WESSENBERG.

94 CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815

(ESPAGNE) SPAIN.1

FRANCE,

(L.S.) LE PRINCE DE TALLEYRAND.

(L.S.) LE DUG D'ALBERG.

(L.S.) LE COMTE ALEXIS DE NOAILLES.

GREAT BRITAIN,

(L.S.) CLANCARTY. (L.S.) CATHCART. (L.S.) STEWART, L. G.

PORTUGAL,

(L.S.) LE COMTE DE PALMELLA.

(L.S.) ANTONIO DE SALDANHA DA GAMA.

(L.S.) D. JOAQUIM LOBO DA SILVEIRA.

PRUSSIA,

(L.S.) LE PRINCE DE HARDENBERG. (L.S.) LE BARON DE HUMBOLDT.

RUSSIA,

(L.S.) LE PRINCE DE RASOUMOFFSKY. (L.S.) LE COMTE DE STACKELBERG. (L.S.) LE COMTE DE NESSELRODE.

SWEDEN,

(L.S.) LE COMTE CHARLES-AXEL DE LOWEN- HIELM.

(Save and except the reservation made to the Articles CI, CII, and CIV of the Treaty.)

[NOTE. — For these reservations, see State Papers, vol. ii, pp. 759, 760.]

1 Spain acceded to the treaty on June 7, 1817. She did not sign it.

CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815 95

ANNEX I. Treaty between Austria and Russia respecting Poland. Signedat Vienna April 2i/May 3, 1.8I5.1 Articles i, 2, 3, 4, 5 were embodied in the principal Treaty as, respec- tively, 5, 3, 4, 6, and i. They had reference to the new Austro- Russian frontiers, &c. Article 6 enabled inhabi- tants to leave the country on its transfer. Articles 7, 8, 9 were embodied in the principal Treaty as Articles n, 12, and 13, general amnesty and sequestrations. Articles 10 to 23, property of proprietors having estates on both sides of boundary line. Articles 24 to 29, navigation of rivers in Poland, tariffs, &c. (see Article 14 of principal Treaty). Articles 30 to 40 related to loans and debts, surrender of documents, evacuation of territories, &c.

ANNEX II. Treaty between Russia and Prussia relating to Poland, signed at Vienna April 2i/May 3, 1815.2

Articles i, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 are embodied in substance in the principal Treaty as Articles 2, 6, i, n, 12, 13 respectively. The remaining provisions of the Treaty are very similar to those of the Austro-Russian Treaty (see Annex I).

ANNEX III. Additional Treaty between Austria, Prussia, and Russia relative to Cracow. Signed at Vienna April 2i/May 3, 1815. 3

Articles i, 2, 3, 6, embodied in principal Treaty as Articles 6, 7, 8, 9. This Treaty constituted Cracow a free, neutral, and independent town under the protection of Austria, Prussia, and Russia, with consequent conditions and privileges. [By a treaty between the same Powers dated November 6, 1846, the above additional Treaty was abrogated, the independence of Cracow was put an end to, and the territory incorporated with Austrian dominions. The British and French Governments protested against this infraction of the Treaty of Vienna.4 The constitution of Cracow, which was appended to this Annex, disappeared with the Treaty which created it.]

ANNEX IV. Treaty between Prussia and Saxony (also between Austria and Saxony and between Russia and

1 State Papers, vol. ii, p. 56. * Ibid., vol. ii, p. 63.

' Ibid., vol. ii, p. 74. ' Hertslet, vol. i, p. 120, foot-note.

96 CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815

Saxony) on the subject of territorial reconstruction. Signed at Vienna May 18, 1815.*

Articles 2, 4, 13, 16, 21 were incorporated in the principal Treaty as Articles 15, 16, 20, 21, and 22. They related to territorial changes, religious property, amnesty, emigra- tion, &c.

Article 17 concerned the navigation of the Elbe. Article 19, supply of salt from Prussia duty free. Article 22, recognition by Saxony of sovereign rights of Austria, Prussia, and Russia in portions of Poland, &c. [Great Britain acceded to this Treaty.]

ANNEX V. Declaration of King of Saxony on Rights of House of Schonburg, Vienna, May 18, 1815. Act of Accep- tation by the five Powers, May 29, i8i5.2

ANNEX VI. Treaty (territorial), Prussia and Hanover. Vienna, May 29, i8i5.3 Articles i, 2, 4, 5, 6 embodied in the principal Treaty as Articles 27, 28, 29, 30, 31. Reci- procal cessions, Prussia, Hanover, Brunswick, Oldenburg, navigation of the Ems, debts, &c.4

ANNEX VII. Convention (territorial), Prussia and Saxe- Weimar. Vienna, June i, i8i5.6 Article 3 was embodied in the principal Treaty as Article 39.'

ANNEX VIII. Convention (territorial). Prussia and Nassau. Vienna, May 31, 1815.' This convention contains a stipulation (Article 5) relating to the fortress of Ehren- breitstein, enabling Prussia to erect military works within a certain radius of the fortress ' even in those communes which may remain under the Sovereignty of the House of Nassau '.

ANNEX IX. Act concerning the Federative Constitution of Germany. Vienna, June 8, 1815. 8 Articles I to II, first paragraph, are embodied in the principal Treaty as Articles 53 to 63. This Act established a Confederation of the Sovereign Princes and Free Towns of Germany (17 in

1 State Papers, vol. ii, p. 84. * Ibid., vol. ii, pp. 93, 94.

* Ibid., vol. ii, p. 94.

4 The Kingdom of Hanover was annexed to Prussia by Decree of September 20, 1866 ; State Papers, vol. Ivi, p. 1067.

* State Papers, vol. ii, p. 100.

• A further Convention on the same subject was concluded between the two Powers on September 22, 1815 ; State Papers, vol. ii, p. 944.

7 State Papers, vol. ii, p. 102.

• Ibid., vol. ii, p. 1 14.

CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815 97

number), including Denmark for the Duchy of Holstein and the Netherlands for the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg, forming together the Germanic Confederation for the main- tenance of the safety of Germany and the independence of the confederated States. Austria was also a member of this Confederation. A Federative Diet was formed to sit at Frankfort, each of the 17 members having one vote, and a General Assembly in which the number of votes to each member was apportioned according to the respective extent of the individual States. The Act further contained stipu- lations on various matters bearing on the regulation of affairs.

ANNEX X. Treaty, Great Britain, &c. and Netherlands. Vienna, May 31, I8I5.1 Union of the Netherlands and Belgium,2 cessions of territory, Luxemburg, boundaries, &c. Articles i to 8 were embodied in the principal Treaty as Articles 65 to 73. Appended to the Treaty is an Act of the Netherlands Government of July 21, 1814, accepting the sovereignty of the Belgian Provinces.

ANNEX XI A. Declaration (8 Powers) respecting Hel- vetic Confederacy. Vienna, March 20, i8i5.3 Articles i to 8 are, with certain omissions, embodied in the principal Treaty as Articles 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 81, 82, 83. They deal with the integrity of the Cantons, the addition of 3 new Cantons, and stipulations for regrouping of territory, military roads and other internal arrangements.

ANNEX XI B. Act of Acceptance by Switzerland of the above Declaration. Zurich, May 27, 1815. 4

ANNEX XII. Protocol (8 Powers). Vienna, March 29,

1815. 5 Cessions by Sardinia to Geneva. Passage of troops. Protection of Catholic religion in ceded territory, &c.

ANNEX XIII. Treaty, Austria and Sardinia (also Great Britain, Russia, Prussia, and France). Vienna, May 20,

1815. 6 Articles i to 8 embodied in principal Treaty as Articles 85 to 92. Boundaries of Sardinia, union of Genoa, fortifications, cessions to Geneva, neutrality of Chablais and Faucigny, passage of troops, &c. Appended to this

1 State Papers, vol. ii, p. 136.

* This Union was dissolved by Treaties of November 15, 1831, and April 19, 1839 ; see State Papers, vol. xviii, p. 645, and vol. xxvii, p. 1000. This matter is subsequently dealt with in a separate chapter: seep. 126 fi.

1 State Papers, vol. ii, p. 142. 4 Ibid., vol. ii, p. 147.

• Ibid., vol. ii, p. 149. • Ibid., vol. ii, p. 152.

1903

98 CONGRESS TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815

Annex are the conditions respecting the government of Genoa, Geneva, &c.

ANNEX XIV. Conditions attaching to union of Genoa with Sardinia.1

ANNEX XV. Declaration (8 Powers). Vienna, February 8, 1 815.2 Proposed universal abolition of the Slave Trade ; to be a subject for separate negotiations between the Powers.

ANNEX XVI. Regulations. Vienna, March i8i5.3 Embodied in the principal Treaty as Articles 108 to 116. Navigation of rivers. General arrangements, uniformity of system, &c. The Rhine, Neckar, Maine, Moselle, Meuse, Scheldt.

ANNEX XVII. Regulations. Vienna, March 19, i8i5.4 Concerning the Rank and Precedence of Diplomatic Agents.

The above epitome gives roughly the purport of the seventeen Annexes to the Vienna Congress Treaty of June 9, 1815.

1 Stale Papers, vol. ii, p. 959. * Ibid., vol. iii, p. 971.

* Ibid., vol. ii, p. 162. • Ibid., vol. ii, p. 179.

CHAPTER III

THE INDEPENDENCE OF GREECE.

Nationalism in Europe — Mediaeval Greece — Greece and the Turks — Phanariots — Cora.es — 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 Regime — The Danish Dynasty — Treaty of London, 1863 — Accessions of Territory — The Euro- pean War — M. Venizelos — Salonika — King Constantino — 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 san- guinary 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

11 2

ioo THE INDEPENDENCE OF GREECE

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 com- parison 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. * Fyffe, Modern Europe, chap, iv, edition 1892, p. 238.

GREECE

1832-1913

English Miles

102 THE INDEPENDENCE OF GREECE

made them receptive of other influences which tended to a spiritual awakening. There were, moreover, sufficient sources of irritation in the Turkish regime 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 sym- pathy 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 regime 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 se- cured 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 Russians in 1794, and where Greek merchants established a great hold upon the corn-trade.

The one man who did more than any other to train and

REVOLT OF GREECE 103

develop the comparatively small germ of national feeling which existed before his time among the Greeks was Adamantos Coraes, 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 ^i 833, 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 Coraes. 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 thePhanariots at anytime in the eighteenth century.1 Coraes 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 Philike, 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 Philike.

1 See Rhangabe, Histoire litltraire de la Grlce moderns (Paris, 1877) ; Coraes, Autobiography (in Greek), Athens, 1891.

104 THE INDEPENDENCE OF GREECE

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. Metter- nich 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

NICHOLAS I 105

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 i, 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 Petro- grad. 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 alter- native. Once he made up his mind to carry out the mission, no man was better fitted for it. His character was natur- ally congenial to Nicholas, and it did not take them long to come to an understanding. On April 4, 1826, the Pro- tocol 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. Ill, cap. 69). Its effect may probably have been to recognize the Greeks as belligerents.

1 Hertslet, vol. i, No. 129.

106 THE INDEPENDENCE OF GREECE

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 media- tion, 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 '.a

Next year France gave its adhesion to the policy laid down in the Protocol of St. Petersburg. On July 6, i827,3 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 indepen- dence 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, how- ever, 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 him- self 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

» Hertslet, Article I. * Ibid., Article III.

* Treaty of London : Hertslet, vol. i, No. 136.

TREATY OF ADRIANOPLE 107

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 main- land 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 Cod- rington, 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 state. 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 denned their scheme for the settlement of Greece.

The independence of Greece was thus achieved. While 1 Hertslet, vol. i, No. 145.

roS THE INDEPENDENCE OF GREECE

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 l 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 con- siderable 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 inde- pendent 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 n, 1830, the crown was accepted by Leopold of Saxe-Coburg (sub- sequently 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.

TREATY OF LONDON, 1832 icg

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 inde- pendence of Greece under the guarantee of Great Britain, France, and Russia ; this guarantee is referred to and con- tinued in the Treaty of London, July 13, I863.1 Article V leaves the Greek boundaries to be settled by negotiations which were then going on between the three Powers and Tur- key. 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 organi- zation.

1 See pp. 123-125.

no THE INDEPENDENCE OF GREECE

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 dis- charging 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-Holstein- Sonderburg-Gliicksburg (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 > This Treaty is in Hertslet, vol. ii, No. 347.

ACCESSIONS OF TERRITORY in

the sovereignty of Prince William of Denmark, and the guarantee of the three Courts, forms a monarchical, inde- pendent, 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 con- tinental 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 recog- nized 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 i88i.4 The French Minister of Foreign Affairs, W. H. 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 (Constanti- nople), July 21, 1832. Hertslet, vol. ii, No. 161.

1 Ibid., No. 142. March 22, 1829.

1 See also Treaty between Great Britain, France, Russia, and Greece (London), March 29, 1864. Hertslet, vol. iii, No. 357.

• Treaty between the six Powers and Turkey (Constantinople). May 24. 1 88 1. Hertslet, vol. iv. No. 584. By this rectification of her frontier Greece acquired something like 14,000 square miles of new territory.

112 THE INDEPENDENCE OF GREECE

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 out- break of war in August 1914, Greece and Turkey were themselves almost on the point of war over their contend- ing 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, accord- ing to a telegram from himself to Berlin of July 25/Aug. 5, 1914, disclosed in the Diplomatica Engrapha 1913-1917

1 See Speech of M. Venizelos, August 27, 1916 (published by the Anglo-Hellenic League, 1916) :

" 'Avri rd i-ntKraOufjifv (Is rty tAiKpav 'Afftav, KOI TTJV Qpaicrjv KOI r^v Kvtrpov, \vovrts rf\fi<aTiKUS rds virtpxt\i(T(ts 5taij>r>pds fias /^ TONS Svo iOviKovs (MS fx^povs KOI SrjfuovpfovvTfS 'EAAaSa /it-yaAiji/ KCU ia\vpa.t> teal ir\ovoiav, uvTairoKpivofi.ivqv th rd. iiif/iirtTtarfpa iOviKO. ovtipa, 0\(irofitv TOVS BowA-ydpovj vd tlatXavvow €ty T^V 'l£,\\r)ViK})V ~M.dKtdovia.v, va Karakanfldvovv Kal TT,V vircuOpov x^Pav "^ r°-S v6\tts «qt r& <ppovpta /*as, vd. cux/*aAa>Ti£ow ^ iicfi TpTina-ra. TOV 'E\\r]vtKov arparov, \eupls vci (vpaKajftfOa irpds TOVS tir«8po/i«rs ovT( (h Krjpvyutvov OUT* fh dKTjpvKrov ir6\ffiov «aj tvS> /*5.s vapt- \ovrat vir avrwv irpoy (/jnraiypov al <pt\iKUiTtpcu 5ia/3f/3aiw(T««s."

' 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 nights 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.'

M. VENIZELOS 113

(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 under- take 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 lo-June i, 1913. It was published as a White Book by the Venizelos Government on August 18, 1917. See Diplomatika Engrapha (AurAcu/iaTiKd'E-y-ypcK/xi), 1913—17, pp. 6-21.

1 See article in The New Europe, November 9, 1916, by R. M. Burrows, ' Absolutism in Greece and our Treaty Rights ',

1903 j

H4 THE INDEPENDENCE OF GREECE

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 them- selves 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 govern- ment 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.

KING CONSTANTINE 115

and had a new Cabinet formed. The Chamber was Veni- zelist, 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 over- running Serbia. King Constantine's view of his responsi- bilities 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 Fiorina 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

I 2

n6 THE INDEPENDENCE OF GREECE

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 deter- mined 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.

• State Papers, vol. xix, p. 33 ; Hertslet, vol. ii. No. 159.

CONVENTION OF 1832 117

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 2oth year, that is to say, on the ist 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 XL 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 2oth 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

n8 THE INDEPENDENCE OF GREECE

latter to his Chambers, to enable their Majesties to guar- antee, on the following conditions, a Loan to be contracted by the Prince Otho of Bavaria, as King of Greece.

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. The said Loan shall be raised by instalments of 20,000,000 of francs each.

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. 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 3 Courts and His Majesty the King of Greece.

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 respon- sible 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. 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 com- pletely 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 com- pensation shall be defrayed out of the proceeds of the Loan which forms the subject of the preceding Article.

CONVENTION OF 1832 119

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.) PALMERSTON. (L.S.) TALLEYRAND. (L.S.) LIEVEN. (L.S.) MATUSZEWIC.

(L.S.) A. DE COTTO.

120 THE INDEPENDENCE OF GREECE

PROTOCOL OF CONFERENCE BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE, AND RUSSIA, RELATIVE TO THE INDEPENDENCE OF GREECE. LONDON, 3RD OF FEBRUARY,

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 intro- ducing into the former arrangements of the Alliance what- ever 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 : —

§ i. Greece shall form an independent State, and shall enjoy all the rights, political, administrative, and commer- cial, 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 3Qth 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.

PROTOCOL OF CONFERENCE OF 1830 121

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 inter- ested, peace shaU 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 immedi- ately 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 them- selves 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

122 THE INDEPENDENCE OF GREECE

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 differ- ence 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

PROTOCOL OF CONFERENCE OF 1830 123

receive, on the same subject, the instruction hereunto annexed — Lit. I.

§ ii. 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.

CONCLUSION.

Having thus arrived at the close of a long and difficult negotiation, the three Courts sincerely congratulate them- selves 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 WlLLIAM OF DENMARK TO THE THRONE OF GREECE. SIGNED AT LONDON, I3TH JULY, I863.1

ARTICLE I. His Majesty the King of Denmark, in accor- dance 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 (Rot des Grecs).2

ARTICLE III. Greece, under the Sovereignty of Prince

1 State Papers, vol. liii, p. 28.

* 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).

124 THE INDEPENDENCE OF GREECE

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, deter- mined by the arrangement concluded at Constantinople between the 3 Courts and the Ottoman Porte, on the 2ist 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 (Rot des Grecs).

ARTICLE X. 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

TREATY OF 1863 125

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 I3th day of July, in the year of Our Lord, 1863.

(L.S.) RUSSELL. (L.S.) BILLE.

(L.S.) BON. GROS. (L.S.) BRUNNOW.

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 i The Treaty of London (1839) — The Conversations of 1906.

THE Kingdom of Belgium is part of the famous Bur- gundian 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

HOUSE OF BURGUNDY 127

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 : Duke Philip 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 inheri- tance. ' 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 Bur- gundy, but the Duchess Mary transferred the rest of her dominions to the House of Habsburg, by marrying Maxi- milian 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

128 THE NEUTRALITY OF BELGIUM

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 Nether- lands, 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 pro- vinces were under Spanish rule, but in 1713 (Peace of Utrecht), as the result of the War of the Spanish Succes- sion, 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 Habsburg- Bourbon alliance after 1756, which prevented them from being exposed to armies from France. The French Revolu- tion, 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, na-d remained free and independent till 1795. Their Constitution was that of a republican federation, with a quasi-monarchical element in the family of Orange- Nassau. The chief member for the time being of this

HOUSE OF BURGUNDY 129

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 regime. 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 terri- tory.' 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 '.x 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. i.

1903

130 THE NEUTRALITY OF BELGIUM

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 neigh- bours 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,

BELGIUM

English Miles

K 2

132 THE NEUTRALITY 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 manage- ment 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 inspira- tion 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 adminis- tration was under clerical influence, and he had little sym- pathy with parliamentary government. In July 1830, under the advice of his chief minister the Due de Polignac, Charles X, by the famous ' Ordinances ', suspended practi- cally 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 uncon- nected. 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 BELGIAN REVOLUTION 133

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 con- stitutional 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 revolu- tionary 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 pre- sented a great difficulty. The Kingdom of Holland repre- sented 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

134 THE NEUTRALITY OF BELGIUM

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. Lux^m- burg, 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 Nether- lands. 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.*

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 pro- visions. 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.

TREATY OF 1839 *35

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 denned.

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. 1 See the remarks of Lord Clarendon, Hansard, June 20, 1867. •» Seep. 258.

136 THE NEUTRALITY OF BELGIUM

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. Glad- stone'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 n 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, guaran- teed 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 well- known 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. ii, 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 impose upon them ' (February 15, 1856).

• The treaty will be found in Mowat, Select Treaties, pp. 39-41.

BELGIAN ATTITUDE 137

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 con- sidered 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.

Sir,

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. 1 Belgian Minister for Foreign Affairs to British, French, and

138 THE NEUTRALITY OF BELGIUM

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 pre- cautionary measure, before the territory had been violated. More than this, it was suggested by the British Military Attache 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 occupa- tion 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 Attache 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 proposed 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 '.l

The conversations, when first published in the Nord-

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 Aktenstucke zum Kriegsausbruch. Herausgegeben vom Auswartigen Amte, pp. 58, 62.

CONVERSATIONS OF 1906 139

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, how- ever 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 co- operation 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. There- fore, with regard to the conversations between the Chief of the Belgian General Staff and the British Military Attache, 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

140 THE NEUTRALITY OF BELGIUM

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 Liege, the German Government again made tempting pro- posals,2 which would have saved Belgium from further horrors of a hostile occupation, and from the long drawn- out 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.

8 Text and trans, in Collected Diplomatic Documents, pp. 335-6.

» Ibid., p. 340.

TREATY OF 1839 141

the circumstances in which they are made are them- selves a refutation. For the sufferings of Belgium to- day are largely due to her steady and honourable deter- mination 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, IQTH APRIL, I839.1

ARTICLE I. His Majesty the King of the Netherlands, Grand Duke of Luxemburg, engages to cause to be immedi- ately 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 King- dom 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 3ist 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 isth Nov., 1831, should not be obligatory on the High Contracting Parties.

142 THE NEUTRALITY OF BELGIUM

In witness whereof, the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Treaty, and have affixed thereto the Seal of their Arms.

Done at London, the igth day of April, in the year of Our Lord, 1839.

(L.S.) PALMERSTON. (L.S.) DEDEL.

(L.S.) SENFF.

(L.S.) H. SEBASTIANI.

(L.S.) BULOW.

(L.S.) POZZO DI BORGO.

ANNEX TO THE TREATY SIGNED AT LONDON, ON THE IQTH OF APRIL, 1839, BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN, AUSTRIA, FRANCE, PRUSSIA, AND RUSSIA, ON THE ONE PART, AND THE NETHERLANDS, ON THE OTHER

PART.

ARTICLE I. The Belgian Territory shall be composed of the Provinces of —

South Brabant ;

Liege ;

Namur ;

Hainault ;

West Flanders ;

East Flanders ;

Antwerp ; and

Limburg ;

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 Arlon with its district, and the road from Arlon to Bastogne, shall pass between Messancy, which

ANNEX TO TREATY OF 1839 T43

shall be on the Belgian Territory, and Clemancy, which shall remain to the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg, terminat- ing 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 Perle, as far as Martelange : Hec- bus, Guirsch, Grende, Nothomb, and Parette, shall (devant appartenir) belong to Belgium, and Eischen, Ober- Pallen, Perle, 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 Loutre- mange, 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 Fron- tier 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, men- tioned 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 conse- quence of the cessions which His Majesty the King of the Netherlands, Grand Duke of Luxemburg, makes in Article II,

144 THE NEUTRALITY OF BELGIUM

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.

ist. 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 Liege 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 Luxem- burg, 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 stipula- tions 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.

ANNEX TO TREATY. OF 1839 X45

ARTICLE VI. In consideration of the territorial arrange- ments 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 States- General, 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.

ARTICLE IX. § 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

1933

146 THE NEUTRALITY OF BELGIUM

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 con- formity with § 6 hereinafter following. These establish- ments 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. 5oc. per ton, that is to say, ifl. I2c. 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 380. 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

ANNEX TO TREATY OF 1839 147

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 3ist 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 inter- mediate 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 3ist 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 con- ditions ; and that on either side moderate duties only shall be levied upon the navigation of the said Canals.

ARTICLE XL The commercial communications through

L 2

148 THE NEUTRALITY OF BELGIUM

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.

ARTICLE XIII. § 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 con- sequence of the preceding paragraph, to the amount of the

ANNEX TO TREATY OF 1839 149

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.

ARTICLE XIV. The Port of Antwerp, in conformity with the stipulations of Article XV of the Treaty of Paris, of the 3oth of May, 1814, shall continue to be solely a Port of Commerce.

ARTICLE XV. 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.

ARTICLE XVI. The Sequestrations which may have been

150 THE NEUTRALITY OF BELGIUM

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.

ARTICLE XVII. 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 Detraction upon the persons and property of Dutch in Belgium, and of Belgians in Holland, is abandoned, both now and for the future.

ARTICLE XVIII. The character of a subject of the two Governments, with regard to Property, shall be acknow- ledged and maintained.

ARTICLE XIX. 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 neigh- bourhood 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 pro- vided for by the aforesaid stipulations of the Acts of the Congress of Vienna. It is understood that mineral pro- ductions 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 Detrac- tion 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

ANNEX TO TREATY OF 1839 151

relate to those duties, shall be considered null and void in the 3 Countries.

ARTICLE XX. 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.

ARTICLE XXI. The Pensions and Allowances of expec- tants, 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.

ARTICLE XXII. 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 allow- ances, shall be examined by the Mixed Commission men- tioned 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 con- signments, 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 Liquida- tions, 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.

ARTICLE XXIII. 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.

ARTICLE XXIV. Immediately after the exchange of

152 THE NEUTRALITY OF BELGIUM

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, igoG.1

Letter [from the Chief of the Belgian General Staff] to the [Belgian] Minister of War respecting the confidential Interviews.

(Confidential.)

Brussels, April 10, 1906.

Sir,

I have the honour to furnish herewith a summary of the conversations which I have had with Lieutenant- Colonel Barnardiston, which I have already reported to you verbally.

His first visit was in the middle of January. Lieutenant- Colonel 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 Zeitung, October 13, 1914 ; Aktenstucke zum Kriegsausbruch. Herausgegeben vom Aus- wartigen Amte, pp. 58-72 ; Collected Diplomatic Documents, pp. 354 «.)

REPORT OF CONVERSATIONS 153

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, more- over, 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 Liege 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 : (i) 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 attaches 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 : — (Translation.)

'The entry of the English into Belgium would only take place after the violation of our neutrality by Germany.'

154

our field army, and considered it important that no detach- ments from that army should be sent to Namur and Liege, 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 attache 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/ 1 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 attache 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

REPORT OF CONVERSATIONS 155

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 charge- able 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 attache he communicated to me the daily disem- barkation 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 attache 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. Lieu- tenant-Colonel Barnardiston, on his side, informed me that he had at present little confidence in the support or inter- vention of Holland. He likewise confided to me that his Government intended to move the British base of supplies

156 THE NEUTRALITY OF BELGIUM

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 attaches 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. (Initialled.)

Note. — When I met General Grierson at Compiegne at the manoeuvres of 1906 he assured me that the reorganiza- tion 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.

(Initialled.)

(Translation.) (Confidential.)

The British military attache 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.

REPORT OF CONVERSATIONS 157

The general protested that our consent would be necessary for this.

The military attach6 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 attache 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.

CHAPTER V

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 friend- ship — 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 — Rou mania — The Bess- arabian Frontier — Serbia — The Aland 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.

THE CAPITULATIONS 159

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 n, 1914) contained causes of grave trouble, as they created an imperium or rather a series of imperia in imperio, and gave foreign Govern- ments 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 10, 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 Traitts (Gottingen, 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).

160 TURKEY AND THE POWERS, 1856

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 num- bered 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

GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE 161

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 incalcul- able. 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 incom- patible with the existence of Turkey in Europe. The historic movements of that great people have been to- wards the seas, the Baltic, the Black Sea, the Mediter- ranean, 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

1903

M

i62 TURKEY AND THE POWERS, 1856

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.' x 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 com- bination 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 Ambas- sador, 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 oj the Crimea, vol. i, p. 88.

TREATY OF PARIS, 1856 163

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.

M 2

164 TURKEY AND THE POWERS, 1856

has always suffered from being land-locked. Always trying, it has never completely succeeded in getting room and free- play 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 Constanti- nople 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 respect- able 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 Rouma,nia (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

TREATY OF BUCHAREST, 1812 165

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 immedi- ately 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 every- thing which related to Turkey, became fixed.

The expansion of Russia towards Constantinople was steadily pursued. In 1809-10 a fresh campaign was under- taken, 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 * was signed. Russia gained lands east of the Pruth, and Serbian auto- nomy 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 *° 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 n

Related documents

• Treaty on European Union#18404
• Manual of collections of treaties and of collections relating to treaties#198991
• Deeper Integration and Voting on the Common European External Tariff#499974
• Sovereignty, Development and International Economic Law: Some Insights from WTO Dispute Settlement#345847
• 22 U.S.C. § 5304 — International negotiations on exchange rate and economic policies#578448