January, 1815, "the ancient Treaties of alliance, friendship, and guarantee" are declared "to be renewed by the high contracting parties, and acknowledged to be of full force and effect." The nature of these Treaties may be judged from the following clause in the Treaty of 1373*:

"There shall be between the respective kings and their successors, their realms, lands, dominions, provinces, vassals, and subjects whomsoever, faithfully obeying, true, faithful, constant, mutual, and perpetual friendships [Amicita], unions [Adunationes], alliances [Alligantiæ], and leagues of sincere affection [pura Dilectionis fœdera]; and that, as true and faithful princes, they shall henceforth reciprocally be friends to friends and enemies to enemies, and shall assist, maintain, and uphold each other mutually, by sea and by land, against all men that may live or die of whatever degree, station, rank, or condition they may be, and against their lands, realms, and dominions."

8.-CONDITIONAL GUARANTEES.

(a) Neutrality of Inter-Oceanic Canal, U.S.-By the Treaty of the 19th April, 1850, made between Great Britain and the United States, in view of the canal being constructed over Central America, it is agreed that:

"When the said canal shall have been completed, they will protect it from interruption, seizure, or unjust confiscation, and that they will guarantee the neutrality thereof, so that the said canal may for ever be open and free, and the capital invested therein secure."

(b) Neutrality of Inter-Oceanic Railway, Honduras.-By the Treaty of the 27th August, 1853, signed between Great Britain and Honduras, Great Britain "guarantees the neutrality and security" of the projected Honduras InterOceanic Railway, so long as she would continue to enjoy certain conceded privileges.

Rymer, Fadera. Haga, 1739-44. T. III., P. III. 9.

(c) Assistance.-Turkey.-By the Convention of the 4th June, 1878, between England and Turkey, it is agreed :—

"If Batoum, Ardahan, Kars, or any of them shall be retained by Russia, and if any attempt shall be made at any future time by Russia to take possession of any further territories of his Imperial Majesty, the Sultan, in Asia, as fixed by the definite Treaty of Peace, England engages to join his Imperial Majesty, the Sultan, in defending them by force of arms."

In return his Imperial Majesty the Sultan promises to England to introduce necessary reforms.

By the annex to the Treaty it is further agreed, "That if Russia restores to Turkey, Kars, and the other conquests made by her in Armenia, during the last war Convention of June, 1878, will be at an end."

the

(d) Assistance.-Sweden.-By the Treaty of November 21st, 1855, in return for Sweden stipulating not to cede to Russia any territory, Great Britain and France "engage to furnish to His Majesty, the King of Sweden and Norway, sufficient Naval and Military Forces to Co-operate with the Naval and Military Forces of his said Majesty, for the purpose of resisting the Pretensions or Aggressions of Russia."

Examining the terms of these treaties, it may be remarked:

(1.) That they are all treaties of alliance. They are not strict guarantees, either in form or substance. Substitute the words " agree to protect" for the word "guarantee, " and the scope of any of them is not altered. The conditional guarantees are the simplest, inasmuch as they are made between two parties only, and do not raise any difficult questions regarding joint and several liability. Take the Turkish convention, and assume that the condition imposed is fulfilled by Turkey; then it is at once seen that this so-called guarantee is an alliance between Turkey and

England, for the protection of the Asiatic dominions of the former. It is not, however, an ordinary offensive and defensive alliance, when the obligation is generally of a mutual character. No obligation is imposed on Turkey to defend the territories of England, either in Asia, or in any other part of the world. What would be the position of England in case the integrity of Asiatic Turkey were attacked? The answer undoubtedly must be that England would be bound to defend Turkey as if the territory were its own. To use the words of the Marquis of Salisbury, when referring in 1871, in the House of Lords, to the guarantee of Turkish territory by former treaties :-" From the moment the guarantee was entered into, the frontier of Turkey became as the frontier of England-indeed, something more, for you can deal with the frontier of England with loss but without dishonour, whereas you cannot abandon an inch of Turkish frontier without forfeiting your plighted honour."

In so far as one of the parties undertakes to the State guaranteed, that the other Powers shall observe the treaty, it may be admitted that you have an approach to a guarantee proper. But it is extremely doubtful that France, for example, would consider herself bound in the case of the Tripartite Treaty to compel England and Austria to carry out its provisions. In that case the guarantee is expressed to be several and joint. It might be fairly argued that the word "several" implies no more than the due observance of the treaty by the Powers individually. In the majority of the treaties, there are no words to show that any one, or any greater number of the Powers, short of the whole number, guarantee that the remaining Power or Powers shall observe the treaty.

(2.) With the exception of the three conditional alliances, the main obligation of each treaty is binding on a number of States, but only in two, or perhaps three, are any words

expressly used to indicate that the obligation is joint. The neutrality of Luxembourg and the enjoyment of their privileges by Moldavia and Wallachia are stated to be under the "collective guarantee" of the contracting parties. A rather vague phrase is used in the Treaty of Paris, in regard to the independence and integrity of Turkey, which is stated to be guaranteed "in common." It might be urged that the words "in common," imply a guarantee which is joint, but it is obvious that they are open to several other interpretations. Again, whilst the neutral states of Belgium and Luxembourg are required to observe a state of neutrality towards all other States, no such condition is imposed on the neutral State of Switzerland. It may be argued that such a condition is implied, inasmuch as it would be impossible to maintain the neutrality of a State which of its own accord rushes into war. Still the treaty with Switzerland remains a good illustration of the indefinite manner in which treaties are framed.

(4.) The nature of the obligation imposed by the above treaties is of such a vague character, that a particular signatory Power would find little difficulty in giving good reasons for holding aloof in case it was unwilling to resent a supposed breach of the treaty. As has been pointed out, there is nothing in the majority of these treaties to show clearly whether a signatory could take on itself the duty of insisting on the observance of the treaty, or whether if one decline to interfere, the duty of compelling the observance of the treaty would still rest on the other parties to it. With the exception of the case of the Swedish Treaty and the Turkish Convention, there is no promise of actual assistance in the form of arms or men. Indeed, in the Treaty of Paris the consequence of the guarantee is stated to be such, that any violation of the treaty will be regarded as a matter of "common interest." The fact that England was not called on by Austria and France to fulfil the conditions of

the Tripartite Treaty, was regarded by the late government as a sufficient reason for declining to treat the invasion of Turkey by Russia as a casus belli. The uncertainty of the obligation imposed by guarantees was prominently brought out by Lord Derby in a debate in the House of Lords, in March, 1878. "When," he said, "you recognise and guarantee the independence and integrity of a nation, you certainly give some pledge that you will endeavour to prevent that integrity and independence being violated, though it may be a question how far you will go in your efforts for that object."

(5.) The changes that have taken place in the Ottoman Empire raise grave doubts whether or no the guarantee of Turkey, entered into by the Treaty of Paris, and the Tripartite Treaty, is still of full force and effect. The subject has been discussed both in the House of Lords, and the House of Commons. Lord Beaconsfield admitted that there was considerable doubt whether these treaties were still binding, but the then Attorney-General in the House of Commons asserted, "without fear of contradiction," that the Tripartite Treaty "was still in force, was still in existence." He said so on the ground that "No Power having entered into a treaty, could abrogate it, except with the consent of all the other Powers," and in regard to the Treaty of Paris, the Treaty of Berlin had preserved all the provisions of that treaty, which were not expressly altered.

All this is undoubtedly true, but does not touch the real question at issue, as far as the Tripartite Treaty is concerned. Admitting that the Treaty of Berlin affirmed the Treaty of Paris, except in so far as it varied its terms, no reference was made in the Berlin Treaty to the Tripartite Treaty. In the case of the latter treaty the question is-has there been such a change in the circumstances under which the treaty was made, and in the objects contemplated by it, as practically to abrogate it?