The Sun.
London, England, 1870-11-28 00:00:00

TELEGRAPH COMPANIES.

10 British Ind Exten (L). 6 61 10 Mediterrn Ex (L) 4l 5
10 British Indian Sub- 21 Puma and S. Pcfc(L) 31 21 dis
marine, (L) ...... .. 7 73 die
71, 1 8 Reuter's
2 China Submarine (L) 5141,113 -20 SoeTrans France (L) 14 141
10 Falmouth. Gibraltar, 100 Submarine 235 241
and Malta (L)
lon, 1 10 W India& Panama( L) 4 5
10 Great Northern
MISCELLANEOUS SECURITIES.
Pd I'd
Anglo-Austrian Bnd- 5 InterulFinan SoctL) 2 Ildis
holden' Certificate 13 21 20 It Irrig Can Cavan: 3 4
10 BerlinWaterworks(L) 143 153/4 100 Do 6p c Bonds. re-
deemable 1870 , 63 65
30 Bolckow-Vaughan (L) 30 35pm 30 London Fin Assoc (Li 20 19 lie
100 Boston City (U.S.) 5 4 Lon Gen Omnibus .. 21 3
p c Sterling Loan.. 91 93 2 Lou &Prov Marine L) 1 1 pus
4 Brit is Fgn Marine (L) 2/ 31pro 23
25 Canada Company. 74 76 100 Madraslrrig. &Canal
10 Ceylon Company (L) 33 31dis g 5 p c by Ind Gov. 100 101
35 City Offices (L)
20 Colonial (L)
5 Corn Union Assurnce 2121 pm 103
10- Crdt Folic of Eng (L) 2 23 21 ND Zealand Loan and
2. 1-16 ere Agency IL) 1 I Mx,
100 Crystal Palace
160 Do Pref
100 Do 6p o Perp Deb.. 169 114 63 N Britsh and Merc (L) 28 29
273 Ebbw Vale Steel (L).. 9 B.dis 5 OceanMarinelnsur
100 Viceroy of Egypt 7P 0 10 P and 0 Steam 49 51
Mortgage Loan.... 76 78 Do do New. 1867 2 dis par
73 0 Ithymney Iron
100 Egyp 9 p cV'roy Loa.n, 5 Do New B3/4 91
guar by Bur Gov.. 93 95 0 Royal Mail Steam
843/4, 5x d 2 Tel Con and Main (L) 20 261
13 Fore-stWareLouse (L) 6/ 71pm 261, i
201, 20 2 Thames and Mersey
100 Fgn and Colonial Gov Maxine Insur (L
Trust 6p c Bonds.. 96 99 51, 5-16, 3
73 Gen Credt &Disct (L) 3 }dis St Tobacco 6r ci Loan.
7 guar by Italian Gov. 83 87
14 Gen Stm Navigation 26 28 5 Trust and Loan Co of
7 Hooper 's Tel Works 111.1 dis Upper Canada ... il3 pm
17 Hudson's Bay 8 83 5 U Marine, Lvpool (I. 43 spm
81 20 Union Steamship (L) 24 .6
45 Indrbbr,GutPer.and 6 United Dis Corprn (L 2 hits
Tel Works L) .... 371 381 5 Univ Marine Incur ILI 6161nin
38 12 War:aut Finance.... 0 7 die

I'd I'd
w
100 Angio-Arutran L) 82 84 6 Great N. China, and
10 Anglo-Meditrn (1,) l2B 133 Japan Extension.. 21 2 (Us
100 Atlantic — • 5 Indo-European (1.1.. 12 14
100 Do 8p c - 10 Marseilles, Algiers,
10 British Australu (L) 4Ol 3Nis and Alalta (1) .... 5 61

}Hi SUN, LONDON, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1870.

THE EASTERN QUESTION.

privileged classes themselves, who ate to be put under
a restraint to which they have not been accustomed, seem
to share the general satisfaction. All these manifes-
tations must not lead one to suppose, however,
that the public feeling here is in favour
of a war with the signitary Powers to the Treaty of Paris.
On the contrary, there is a general desire for time to be
taken to settle the Eastern question. It is urgently
desired that the Government may be supported in an un-
dertaking which will tend to place it in a favourable posi-
tion with respect to the Christian populations of Turkey,
so that in the event of a misunderstanding. the Eastern
question may be settled in our favour. Besides this, I
can assure you that one among the Powers who signed the
Treaty of Paris will be quite willing to support the claims
of the Russian Government. The day after the publication
of Gortschakoff's Circular the Minister of the Interior assem-
bled the editors of the principal political journals, and
assured them positively that the Emperor wished them to
leave off their attacks on Prussia, because, he added, "this
Power is lending us a decided support under existing
circumstances." The wish of the Sovereign was complied
with, and for the last three days not a single journal has
uttered a sentence against the powerful " "of
" our Government."

COUNT BEUST ON THE TREATY OF 1856.

The Austro-Hungarian Livre Rouge publishes the full
text of the two despatches addressed by Count Beust to
Count Chotek, the Austrian, Ambassador at St.
Petersburg, respecting the denunciation of the Treaties of
1856. Both letters are dated Vienna, November 16th,
1870. The first is as follows
The Russian envoy remitted to me a few days since
the despatch annexed to this. I hastened to submit it to
the Emperor and King, and it is by his Majesty's order
that I direct you to bring the following considerations to
the notice of Prince Gortschakoff. These are the terms
of the 14th Article of the Treaty concluded at Path
March 30, 1856." Their Majesties the Emperor of Russia
and the Sultan having concluded a convention to deter-
mine the strength and the number of the light vessels
necessary for the protection of their coasts which they
agree to maintain in the Black Sea, that Convention is
annexed to the present treaty, and will have the same
force and value as if it were au integral part of it. It
cannot be annulled or modified without the assent
of the Powers signing the present treaty." The
last paragraph of this article by its positive
terms acquires an especial value, from the ex-
press and exceptional mention of a stipulation
which in all times has been regarded as understood in
international transactions. We cannot, then admit a
doubt as to the absolute force of this reciprocal engage-
ment, unless one or other of the contracting powers should
feel itself in a position to bring forward powerful arguments
against the maintenance of such or such disposition of a
Treaty, which it was agreed to declare beforehand, could
never be annulled or modified without the assent
of the whole of the Powers which signed
it. It is only so as not to fail in courtesy
towards the Cabinet of St. Petersburg that instead
of contenting ourselves with the simple refusal
that includes our whole opinion of the proposal just made,
we enter into an examination of the arguments on which
this communication is based. The despatch of the Rus-
sian Chancellor begins by referring to a certain inequality
or iniquity in those clauses of the Treaty which limit the
Russian means of defence in the Black Sea, while others
allow Turkey to maintain unlimited naval forces in the
Archipelago and the Straits. It is not our place to discuss
the origin or the merit of an arrangement which was not
made between Russia and ourselves, but was common to
all the Great Powers. We will only allow ourselves to
remark to Prince Gortschakoff that such a consideration
may prevent the signature of a treaty, and after the signa-
ture may serve as a basis for demanding its modification,
but it can never authorise an arbitrary solution. We
will say more. The reason which the Russian
Government puts forward to justify a one-sided
act, far from mitigating its character, only in-
creases its gravity. The maxim which it pleases
him to adopt compromises, not only all existing treaties
but all those to come. It may tend to render them easy,
it will not render them substantial. But the Cabinet of
St. Petersburg recals infringements which the
Treaty of 1856 has not escaped. There were revolutions
in the Danubian Principalities which, contrary to the
spirit and the letter of the Treaty and its appendages, led
to the union of the Principalities and the call of a
foreign prince. Let us be allowed to mention a point
which seems to us most important. The Principalities
of Moldavia and Wallachia were not contracting
parties to the Treaty of 1856. They were under the
suzerainty of the Ottoman Porte. Was it, then, the Porte
which was responsible for the changes which have taken
place in those coantries, and which in the eyes of the
Imperial Government of Russia constitute an infraction
of the treaties? Was it the Porte which demanded
that they should be sanctioned, and is it not
that Power which to-day is to accept an in-
fringement evidently prejudicial to her rights and
her interests? There remains the entry of some foreign
war vessels into the Black Sea. These facts were
unknown to us, unless the unarmed war vessels escorting
sovereigns are referred to. Such demonstrations, as
the Cabinet of St. Petersburg must be well aware, had
certainly a very inoffensive character. Nothing prevented
the Russian Government from making a complaint the
moment it appeared incompatible with the stipulations
of the Treaty, The Government of his Imperial and
Royal Majesty has not learned without painful
regret the determination which Prince Gortschakoff's
despatch announces, and by which the imperial Govern-
ment of Russia assumes a grave responsibility. It is im-
possible not to manifest its profound surprise, and to call
the serious attention of the Imperial Cabinet to the con-
sequence of a proceeding which not only attacks
an International Act signed by all the great
Powers, but which takes place in the midst of circum-
stances in which Europe more than ever requires the
guarantees which the faith of treaties affords to its
repose and its future.
" You will read the present despatch to Prince Gorts-
chakoff, and you will leave him a copy of it."
In the second letter Count Beust says :—" The Russian
Envoy has read to me some passages of another dispatch
from his Cabinet on the same affair, but of a more confi-
dential character. In this Prince Gortschakoff expresses
his hope that we shall be willing to favour his resolve to
free himself from the stipulations regarding the neutralisa-
tion of the Black Sea. I replied that we had always shewn
our readiness to assist the Court of St. Petersburg, but
that I regretted the cold reception which had been
accorded to some previous efforts on our part with respect
to this subject. The Russian Government thought that
our manifestation had excited the suspicions of the French
Government, and our proposition that a conference
should be held on the Eastern question found no favour
in the sight of Russia. Such a mode of receiving an ad-
uance on our part might well cause us surprise. I also
explained to the envoy the essential difference which
existed between the combination suggested by us in 1867
and the declaration which his Government had
lately made. According to our scheme the
limits assigned. to Russia's freedom. of action
in the Euxine, was to be determined by the test
of the Treaty itself, and not by a simple one-sided act.
When we recommended the legal abrogation of the act;
with the unanimous consent of all the signatory Powers,
it did not at all follow that we should approve of its arbi-
trary annulling by the single voice of the interested party.
I cannot comprehend how the Russian Government can
act in direct opposition to the clause which states that the
Convention respecting the Black Sea cannot be changed
without the consent of all the signatory Powers, and yet
charge us with inconsistency. Finally I assured
the Envoy that the step taken by the Auitro-
Hungarian Cabinet could never be attended by the
dangerous consequences, which would follow from the
recent act of the St. Pete rsbarg Cabinet. Had Russia
obtained the sanction of Europe for the renewal of her
rights in the Black Sea, it would hav6 been very different
from the step.which she has taken, awl, which can hardly
fent° cause serious misohief. Already in Western Europe it
has produced irritation which is likely to prove very Prejudi-
cial to the interests of peace. In the Levant this affair
has given rise to the impression that Russia has deter-
mined to settle the Eastern question for herself, and the
imagination of the Christian people of these countries will
be greatly excited. We see in the attitude assumed
by the St. Petersburg Cabinet not exactly a decided
threat to Europe, but a source of unfortunate
strife, placing its peace in peril. I never made
a secret of my belief that the Treaty of 1856 placed Russia
in the Black Sea in a position which was not worthy of
BO great a Power, and I always made this opinion known
to the guaranteeing Powers; but I was the more pained.
to see the Imperial Government, in order to redress its
wrongs, have recourse to a wane . which, nnder all
circumstances, is not the most happy that con d be
selected."