permanent freedom of commercial navigation through the Straits; the second is the closing of the Straits to men-of-war of all nations, with the exception of those of Turkey. He informed us that this absolute freedom of navigation can only be safeguarded by allowing Turkey to possess a fleet of warships and to apply for the defence of the Straits and the Sea of Marmora all the technical machinery of modern warfare.' In order to defend this paradox M. Chicherin had recourse to history and informed us that the methods which he advocated had always been recognised in the past by the States represented at this conference. Although, however, it is true that the policy now advocated by M. Chicherin is one which the Western Powers consistently followed during the 19th century, it is also one which Russia herself has with equal consistency opposed. The respective policies of Europe and Russia have now been reversed. For whereas the Western Powers have now no longer any intention or desire to impede the free passage of Russian warships through the Straits, it is the Russians themselves who now wish to render such passage impossible.

"The point is historical only and, as such, academic; but as M. Chicherin has appealed to history, it is only logical to point out that the historical argument is not one which will furnish much support to his present contention.

"I have already observed that M. Chicherin put in the forefront of his argument as a fundamental principle, the equality of the position and rights of Russia and her allies with the position and rights of other Powers. But as he proceeded, he appeared to forget all about the other Powers; though their representatives were seated at the table and addressed this conference immediately afterwards.

"It is true that in the past, Russia and Turkey were the only Powers littoral to the Black Sea, but since then there have emerged other States whose interests, on the basis of equality as M. Chicherin himself laid down, are at least equal to those of Russia. I speak of Roumania and Bulgaria. They had no place in his exposition. But a little later, when we listened to their representatives, we discovered that neither of these countries considers that Russia has any right to speak in the name of all the littoral Powers, and that their ideas as to maintaining the peace of the world and the security of their possessions in the Black Sea differed materially from those of M. Chicherin.

"So much for the general principles which were expounded by the Russian delegation.

"I will now proceed to subject to a rather closer examination the proposals themselves, which assume a larger importance than they would otherwise have possessed from the fact that Ismet Pasha told us that they were in general correspondence with the ideas of the Turkish delegation.

"Let us see to what extent they would fulfil in practice the essential objects which M. Chicherin set out to achieve and which I have already defined in his own terms. I am afraid that in many respects they would have a very opposite effect.

"The conference will have recognised that the proposals of the Russian delegation amount in fact to the maintenance of the situation

existing in the Straits and the Black Sea before the war, with the important exception that Turkey is to be deprived of the right which she obtained in 1871 of opening the Straits in time of peace to the vessels of war of friendly and allied Powers. The peace of the world, the equality of position and rights of Russia and other Powers and the security and commercial freedom of Russia and her allies are to depend firstly upon the unrestricted and sole guardianship by Turkey of the Straits, and secondly upon the alınost equally unrestricted control of the Black Sea by Russia since she is without doubt, by the extent of her coast-line and the wealth of her resources and man-power, potentially the strongest naval Power in the Black Sea.

"Now I ask the Powers represented at this conference-both the other littoral Powers of the Black Sea, such as Roumania and Bulgaria, and the Powers, who before the war possessed and to-day possess the bulk of the commercial tonnage trading through these waters, France, Italy, Great Britain, Greece and the United States of America, and also Russia and Turkey-whether these proposals can possibly be regarded as a permanent and satisfactory solution of this problem. What they attempt to do is not to create a stable and durable system, fair alike to all the Powers and all the interests concerned, but to convert the accidental and probably ephemeral grouping of Powers, which has emerged from the recent war, into a permanent control of these areas-whether for purposes of aggression or defence. This is a solution which is not only eminently unjust, but could not hope to endure.

"The history of these regions abounds in examples of the manner in which Russian control of the Black Sea and Turkish guardianship of the Straits has been administered. As regards the former, Turkey will recall the arrival of the Russian fleet at Constantinople in the days of Mehemet Ali and the Treaty of Unkiar-Skelessi. As regards the latter, I need only refer to the disabilities to which neutral trade was exposed during the war between Italy and Turkey in 1911; to the serious obstructions imposed by Turkey upon neutral commerce during the Balkan wars which followed; and to the farreaching effect of the similar action taken by Turkey in 1914 upon the fortunes of Russia, Roumania and the Allies. After the experience of the past decade, I think that few Powers here will be prepared to return, as a permanent solution of this question, to the situation existing before the war.

But there are certain more specific criticisms which might be made upon M. Chicherin's formula. In the first place, apart from the fact that it ignores the principle of international law that the passage between the two seas should be regarded as an international highway, it would, if adopted by this conference, give to Russia a position of exceptional and indefensible advantage within the Black Sea. In other words, although Russian and Turkish warships have the right under international law to free passage through the Suez, Panamá and Kiel canals and through all the other straits of the world, M. Chicherin proposes to deny these rights to other nations in regard to the passage between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. In the second place, he contended that the opening of the Straits to

warships would be to the advantage of the strongest naval Power. But he omitted to mention that the closing of the Black Sea would place the other littoral countries at the mercy of the littoral Power possessing the strongest land forces, in other words, Russia herself.

"Even on the commercial side it may be observed that under M. Chicherin's formula, whereas Russia would be able to protect by means of her Baltic fleet Russian commerce in waters outside the Black Sea, the non-littoral Powers would be precluded from protecting their commerce within that sea. Of the shipping entering the Black Sea only 20 per cent. bears the flag of littoral States, whereas the remaining 80 per cent. belongs to outside Powers. M. Chicherin's loudly expressed love for equality is consistent with a willingness to deny to those Powers all right of protection.

"In fact, the more closely we examine the Russian programme, the more clearly does it emerge that it has only one object in view, viz., to convert the Black Sea into a Russian lake with Turkey as the faithful guardian at the gates. Roumania proposed demilitarisation. Not so the Russian delegation. Within the waters of the Black Sea Russia is to reign supreme. She may fortify the coasts. She may create a powerful navy, powerful enough, at any rate, to overawe her neighbours. She may transport her troops from coast to coast. Free from attack elsewhere, except in her ice-bound ports, she may meditate and execute what plans she pleases in the Black Sea area and in the Caucasus. No one else is to have access to this privileged zone. It is to be shut off from the world. M. Chicherin told us that he was very much disturbed at the preponderance of the forces of any Power at the mouth of the Dardanelles. That was perhaps because they happened at the moment to be British. But he does not object to a similar preponderance in the safe seclusion of the Black Sea-provided only that it be Russian. Such is the very remarkable contribution that was made two days ago by the Russian delegation to the doctrine of the equal rights of nations and the peace and contentment of mankind.

"I will now proceed to explain in general terms the proposals of the Allies. They fall under two heads: (1) regulations for the passage of vessels, whether of peace or war, through the Straits; (2) the creation of demilitarised zones on the shores of the Straits. The full text of these two schemes will be laid before the conference at the close of my remarks.

"In framing these proposals, it has been the object of the Allies to seek no special advantage for themselves, but to bear in mind the permanent factors in this problem, without the consideration of which no lasting solution is possible. These factors may be thus described::

"1. The primary interest in these waters, from the point of view both of economic life and security against attack, of the littoral States of the Black Sea, both great and small, and the necessity of giving equal consideration to the interests of all those States.

2. The character of the Dardanelles, the Sea of Marmora and the Bosphorus, as an international highway for the commerce of the world between two international seas, and

the necessity, therefore, of treating it, as far as possible, in the same manner as other international waterways, whether rivers, straits or canals, with a view to assure the freedom of peaceful commerce.

"3. The existence of the capital of Turkey and the seat of the Caliphate on the shores of this waterway.

(6

Taking into account all these factors, my colleagues and I propose the following general rules for the navigation of the Straits. For the sake of clearness I will deal separately with ships of commerce and ships of war:

"1. As regards ships of commerce, there will be complete freedom of navigation whatever the flag and the cargo, without any formalities, taxes or charges whatsoever, in time of peace and in time of war, when Turkey is neutral. In time of war, when Turkey is belligerent, there shall be complete freedom of navigation for neutral vessels, provided no assistance is given to the enemies of Turkey whether by the carriage of contraband, troops, or enemy civilian passengers. The means taken by Turkey to prevent eneiny ships from using the Straits shall not be of such a nature as to interfere with the free passage of neutral vessels.

"2. As regards ships of war, in time of peace there shall be complete freedom of passage for all flags, without any formality, tax or charge whatever, subject to a limitation on the number and duration of stay of the warships of any one Power in a Turkish port. The signatory Powers shall maintain the same right as before the war to keep stationnaires in the waters of the Straits and the Sea of Marmora, and under the same conditions.

"In time of war, when Turkey is neutral, there shall be complete freedom of passage for warships as in time of peace.

"In time of war, when Turkey is a belligerent, there shall be freedom of passage for neutral warships only.

"It will have been observed that there is one popular misapprehension which these proposals entirely remove. It has often been stated that the desire of the Western Powers is to impose upon Turkey some such solution as would leave the capital of the Turkish State at the mercy of a hostile fleet. The Turkish delegation and the entire conference will now have seen that such is not the case. We feel that Turkey has every right to demand that when she is at war no belligerent warship may pass the Dardanelles and proceed into the Sea of Marmora. On this point the Allied Powers are agreed, and our proposals contain this very important reservation. Further, the conference will also have recognised that under our scheme, when Turkey is at war, the freedom of passage for commercial vessels will also be restricted, and that in such an event Turkey will retain the right of visit and search within her waters in order to prevent the transport either of troops or of contraband. Finally, in the event of a war in which Turkey herself is neutral, the Allied Powers agree to the imposition upon belligerent warships of the conditions and restrictions defined in the Thirteenth Hague Convention of 1907 regarding maritime neutrality.

"I now proceed to the second heading of our proposals regarding

demilitarisation.

In order to ensure the due carrying out of the above rules, the Allies propose (1) that certain zones to be fixed on the European and Asiatic shores of the Dardanelles and Bosphorus shall be effectively demilitarised; (2) that an international commission shall be set up with the necessary technical services both to provide for the buoying, lighting and quarantine defence of the waters of the Dardanelles, Bosphorus and Sea of Marmora, and to supervise and inspect the demilitarisation of the land zones. This commission would be composed of one member each appointed by the Governments of the littoral States of the Black Sea and those Powers who are especially interested in Mediterranean commerce, viz., France, Great Britain, Japan, Italy, Russia, the United States, Turkey, Greece, Roumania, Jugoslavia and Bulgaria. The Turkish member should be the permanent president. The exact procedure by which this commission should be constituted and the auspices under which it should work, whether the League of Nations or otherwise, remain for consideration.

"As regards the manner in which the proposed demilitarisation should be carried out, the extent and area of the zones, and the forces that might be required for the defence of Constantinople, these points will be found specified in the second paper which it is proposed to circulate at the close of this sitting.

"There remains a third branch of the subject which I have not so far touched. When we were discussing some days ago the demilitarisation of certain zones on the frontiers of Eastern Thrace, the Turkish delegation enquired whether any, and if so what form of guarantee, in the shape of neutralisation or otherwise, could be provided for the security of those regions from attack.

66

Perhaps the same question inay be put with regard to the demilitarised zones on the Straits which we have now proposed to create. This is a question which we are quite ready to examine with the Turkish jurists, and it is a task which can be taken in hand without further delay.

"I have now completed my summary of the various proposals which my colleagues and I have agreed to submit, not as a mere tentative sketch, but as the result of anxious thought and prolonged deliberation with expert authority. I hope that they may be found to provide a settlement of one of the most vexed and complicated problems of international policy-a problem of which, if this conference were able to arrive at a settlement, we should be held to have justified our labours, however protracted, and to have merited the thanks of the world."

M. BARRERE read the following statement:

"The conference has listened to a clear and full analysis of the proposals concerning the régime of the Straits which are presented by Lord Curzon conjointly with his allies.

"The conference will doubtless not consider it superfluous that the representative of France should explain the spirit in which the Allies have formulated these proposals and also the principles and ideas by which they are guided.

"Freedom of navigation is an essential condition of the development of relations between States and for the maintenance of peace