POSITION OF TURKEY AS A MARITIME POWER.

(From the Newcastle Daily Chronicle, August 13, 1874.) THE following is a copy of a letter addressed by Mr. GEORGE CRAWSHAY to the Secretary of the Newcastle Foreign Affairs Association:

London, Aug. 9, 1874.

To the Secretary of the Newcastle Foreign Affairs Association. SIR,-Before leaving for Constantinople I have a few words to say to the Association.

Take note of the words of Mr. DISRAELI in the House of Commons on the 5th instant, as follows:—

"There are agencies at work in Europe that are preparing a period of great disturbance. It may not occur in my time, or while I am standing on this side of the House; but I am glad to know that on both sides of the House there is arising a generation of statesmen who will be competent to cope with it, and I only wish to impress upon them that this great task is one which they cannot avoid, and to which I hope they will be equal."

In France, which country, from her recent sufferings, is more keenly alive than any country in Europe to the possibility of the danger here suggested, these words have caused a profound sensation: they ought to be no less felt in England. Addressed to both sides of the House they are expressly taken by the speaker out of the region of party, and are obviously intended for the purposes of stimulating whatever disposition there may be among the English people to give attention to foreign affairs. They are warned that their existence will depend upon their doing so.

Again, we have in the QUEEN's speech a pledge that the Government will not entertain any proposition the object of which is to place restrictions on the conduct of naval operations.' This is said in reference to the Brussels Congress, but it would be a mistake to look upon the mention of the Congress in the QUEEN's speech as having any importance except as furnishing the opportunity for making this Declaration,' which is indeed so worded as to suggest withdrawal from the Declaration of Paris.'

The words in the QUEEN's speech are, indeed, nearly the same as the words of the first resolution of the Newcastle meeting of July 1. In that resolution it was laid down that Her Majesty's Government ought not to entertain any proposition for the restriction of belligerents' rights at sea.'

But now, going back to the words of Mr. DISRAELI, observe what he says as to the possibility of danger arising when he is no longer alive, or when he may no longer be "on this side of the House." A Liberal paper, the Echo, of yesterday, laments that a Liberal Government had not been in office to do otherwise in the case of the Brussels Congress than the present Government has done! A change of Government, the people occupied by questions of church, or education, majorities in Parliament dependent upon such questions, are circumstances which might easily furnish to Russia another opportunity for attempting to place restrictions on the conduct of naval operations,' and any such opportunity she would infallibly use. The only thing, therefore, to be done, is to make the maintenance of maritime power an article of faith in England so universally received that it shall be impossible for any Administration to exist open to suspicion on the subject.

I have, further, to direct your attention to two other countries in connexion with this matter, viz., France and Turkey. In France the sense of the value of maritime power has suddenly manifested itself in the most extraordinary manner. I refer to the speech of M. JEAN BRUNET in the Assembly, and the answer of the Duc DECAZES to the effect that France would associate herself with England as to the line of conduct she would pursue at the Brussels Congress, with this additional security given to the French people-that the French delegate should have no power to agree to anything without the consent of the Assembly. The union of England and France for the purpose of maintaining the rights of the maritime Powers against the encroachments of the territorial Powers of Europe is the most hopeful event of our age.

The position of Turkey, as a maritime Power, is one altogether peculiar and most important to be understood. The only outlet for the Black Sea trade of Russia is through the Bosphorus. The whole of the coast of the Black Sea is divided between Russia and Turkey. Consequently the blockade, in time of war, by Turkey of the Russian ports in the Black Sea, will effectually stop the trade of Russia, even under the Declaration of Paris. To release Russia from dependence on Turkey as to her Black Sea trade, more than the Declaration of Paris is required, namely, the entire immunity of private property. Bearing in view this most important consideration, it can hardly be doubted that the Brussels Congress was intended as a means of suppressing the maritime power of Turkey, even more than of England; Turkey having at present, even under the Declaration of Paris, entire control over the Russian trade in the Black Sea. In connexion with this subject you must not omit to consider the incessant efforts made by Russia to establish the independence of the Danubian Principalities. She is as persistent in this as in her efforts to suppress maritime power. Should she succeed, one important consequence would be the existence of a neutral state, with ports on the Black Sea, that might be made available for the shipment of Russian produce in time of war, under the immunities of the Declaration of Paris. To the best of my information there is not the slightest chance of the Porte consenting to such an arrangement. In case of war with Russia, it would indeed be much better for the Porte to have to treat the Principalities as rebellious, and to go to war with them also, than to have them existing as an independent state, whose privileges as a neutral could be made use of by Russia.

The Brussels Congress has had the effect of directing the attention of Turkey to the value of her maritime power, so that, at the present moment, England, France, and Turkey are united, in opposition to restrictions on the conduct of naval operations.'

I cannot conclude without expressing my satisfaction with the paragraph in the QUEEN's Speech which refers to Spain; and with the answer given to the very important question of Sir CHARLES DILKE, to the effect that all papers of interest in relation to the Brussels Congress would be published during the recess.

It is to be regretted that they have had to do with the Congress at all; but with that reservation, everything that the English Government has done in the matter is to be approved, and the effect is visible in the respect of Europe.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

GEORGE CRAWSHAY, Chairman of the Newcastle
F. A. Association.

Westlake versus Vattel.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE "DIPLOMATIC REVIEW." SIR,-In the Times of September 9th, there appeared a long letter from Mr. WESTLAKE on the proceedings of "The Institute of International Law."

One point in the letter itself, and one in the resolutions passed by the members of the Institute, seem worthy of notice. Mr. WESTLAKE says: "A subject like International Law, which does not partake largely of the scientific character, either by the fixity of its principles or by the regularity of its methods, but is to a great extent a body of doctrine combined with a mode of viewing things constantly undergoing modification from circumstances, and the varying drift of opinion, &c." VATTEL, on the contrary (preliminary §8), says: "Since, therefore, the necessary Law of Nations consists in the application of the Law of Nature to States, which law is immutable as being founded on the nature of things, and particularly on the nature of man, it follows, that the necessary Law of Nations is immutable. Whence, as this Law is immutable, and the obligations which arise from it necessary and indispensable, nations can neither make any changes in it by their conventions, dispense with it in their own conduct, nor reciprocally release each other from the observance of it."

The difference between the two writers is irreconcilable, and it is for the Statesmen of the world to choose between them. If they adopt Mr. WESTLAKE as a guide will they not be forced logically to proceed another step, and to say that the Ten Commandments are "constantly undergoing modification ?"

It is true that they are but little better observed than the Law of Nations, but we have hardly yet got to the point of proposing to alter them, though we may come to it before long if we follow Mr. WESTLAKE'S lead! The resolution says: "A Power which has been injured by a violation of the duties of neutrality has no right to consider the neutrality as at an end, and to defend itself by arms against the State which has violated it, except in grave cases, and only during the continuance of the war."

I pass over the absurdly defective English of the sentence, which may possibly arise from Mr. WESTLAKE's imperfect translation, the resolution. having been originally framed in French, and come to the doctrine conveyed in it.

Why, pray, am I not to defend myself by arms against a State which has violated the duties of neutrality? Does Mr. WESTLAKE deny me the right of self-defence? or, is it simply that he is determined to disagree with VATTEL, who lays down distinctly that "the associates of my enemy are my enemies, and I may make war on them without any declaration, the war being sufficiently declared by their own act." "Associates of the enemy" are defined to be those (amongst others), "who assist him in his war without being obliged to it by any Treaty" (B. iii., chap. vi.) I admit that Mr. WESTLAKE still allows me to defend myself "in grave cases," but who is to decide what comes under that head, and why could not he and the other members of the Institute have been contented with the simple old rule, which said distincly, Be neutral, or take the consequences. Your obedient servant,

P. S.

Printed and published by C. D. COLLET, at 22, East Temple Chambers, Whitefriars-street, Fleetstreet, London; and Sold by I. A. BROOKE, 282, Strand; Birmingham: MORRIS, High-street, Digbeth; Keighley: GREGSON, Low Gate; Manchester: Heywood, Deansgate, and HIBBERT, Shudehill. And by all Booksellers and Newsmen in Town and Country.

THE

DIPLOMATIC REVIEW.

"SO NATURAL IS THE UNION OF RELIGION WITH JUSTICE, THAT WE MAY BOLDLY DEEM THERE IS NEITHER WHERE BOTH ARE NOT.”—Hooker

VOL. XXIII., No. 1.

JANUARY, 1875.

CONTENTS.

PRICE 2d.

"Provincial" Spain

THE GREVILLE MEMOIRS

The Words of Mr. Disraeli at Guildhall
The Government by "Handcuffs" in Italy
Prince Bismarck and the Bank of England
Prince Bismarck's Opinion of Prince Orloff
RUSSIA'S FRIENDSHIP FOR FRANCE
M. LOTHAIR BUCHER

"Civil" versus "Criminal" Allegiance
"Political Allegiance"

A Word of Advice to the French Monarchists
Response in France to our Work in England
THE RUSSIAN ARTICLES OF WAR.

33

63

63

70

72

76

. 81

93

95

96

Foreign Affairs Committee on the Brussels Protocols
The French Delegates at the Brussels Congress
Privateering; its History and Uses
Cruisers versus Ironclads

The Quarterly Review on Turkey.

THE TURKISH SUCCESSION

MR. CRAWSHAY'S VISIT TO TURKEY

The Congress of Brussels not a Failure for Russia
Mr. Urquhart on Direct Taxation and Free Trade
Abrogation of the Declaration of Paris

NOTICE.

We have to announce the republication in a short time of a rare, valuable, but forgotten tract on Maritime Law, by the late ROBERT PLUMER WARD, entitled “ A Treatise of the Relative Rights of Belligerent and Neutral Powers in Maritime Affairs." It will be prefaced by an Introduction from the pen of Lord STANLEY OF ALDERLEY.

"Provincial" Spain.

AFTER a long interval we return to this country, to observe that it is the promising one of Europe, after all.

Here there are men ready to take up arms, and not for destruction's

sake.

B

Though a fraction only, they can fight without being beaten or betrayed.

In these exceptional evidences of lingering manhood they are moved by local and provincial attachments. Therefore it becomes possible that an order of existence may be there restored by the revival of the Provincial Cortes, and the dissolution of the centralisation at Madrid.

This may take place with or without the success of the Carlists: without their success, by the separation of the provinces: in the hands of DON CARLOS by his success; if, being successful, he has the sense to restore to each Province its liberties, rights, in a word, its ancient FUEROS.

We dealt with Spain at the time of its last revolution, to note that it was called upon to expel ISABELLA in order to obtain three objects. 1. Diminution of taxation. 2. Abolition of conscription. 3. Suppression of the military oath. We then pointed out that the revolution was made" because Spain had less to bear in taxes and conscription than the other countries of Europe, and that these "had to be "increased."

We pointed out that those who made the revolution perfectly well understood the evils which it was their business to augment, and how they were to attract the confidence of the people they were about to betray.

We here described the intentions, not of the mass of indigenous revolutionists, but of the foreign managers of the plot.

If only a similar appreciation existed among those on the other side, how easy it would be to give to that tortured peninsula a comparative repose.

Why should not DON CARLOS undertake to do what the "revolu"tion" declared it to be its object to effect? Why should he not break the chains of Madrid? Why should he not reduce the expenditure? Why should he not abolish conscription?

Resolving to do this, why should he not proclaim such intention? What a contrast with France! There Royalty finds no muskets ready to be shouldered, no local attachments to inspire patriotism, no facilities for the reconstitution of long-forgotten customs, and no escape (in their minds) from the fatal chain of conscription; producing armies which have been her ruin when she could employ them to assail others, and which have proved worse than useless when employed in her own defence.

There is no man of ordinary acquirements throughout Europe, whatever be his opinions, who will or can deny, this case being put to him, that the concentration of authority and the multiplicity of laws are to be deplored. Nor will he deny that such evils are every where on the increase. These admissions will however lead him to no practical results, for he does not act on them, or speak of them. Either he shrinks from an attempt which he deems impossible, or fears to compromise his political opinions,

In Spain no such factitious impossibility exists. Here no profound science, no legislative genius is required. It is only needful to see

one's way.