Nr. 7087. the 13th Protocol of the Congress of Berlin as the basis, upon which the Gross britannien. negotiations are to be carried on. [ I have, &c. 24.Aug.1879. A. H. Layar d. Beilage. Extrait du Protocole No. 1 de la Séance du 10/22 Août, 1879. Les Plénipotentiaires du Gouvernement Hellénique ont déclaré qu'ils se réunissent avec les Plénipotentiaires du Gouvernement Ottoman conformément à l'invitation faite aux deux Etats par les Grandes Puissances, que pour se conformer strictement à cette invitation, ils doivent reprendre les négociations du point où elle ont été interrompues à Preveza, que les négociations en question ayant été, d'après les Protocoles des séances de Preveza, 1/13 Février, 6/18 Mars, rompues à cause de la divergence d'opinion entre les Commissaires du Gouvernement Hellénique déclarant qu'ils ne pouvaient procéder à aucune entente sur la détermination de la nouvelle ligne - frontière du Royaume qui ne serait point basée sur les stipulations du Protocole 13, à savoir: sur la vallée du Calamas en Epire et sur celle du Pénée en Thessalie, et les Commissaires du Gouvernement Ottoman déclarant cette base inacceptable, les Plénipotentiaires du Gouvernement Hellénique, sur le point de reprendre avec les Plénipotentiaires du Gouvernement Ottoman les négociations rompues à Preveza, ont l'honneur de les prier de vouloir bien déclarer de leur côté s'ils acceptent comme base de cette reprise les déterminations du Protocole 13, à savoir: la vallée du Calamas en Epire et celle du Pénée en Thessalie. Nr. 7088. britannien. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Nr. 7088. Botschafter in Konstantinopel an den kgl. Min. d. Ausw. Die zweite Kommissionssitzung. Therapia, September 1, 1879. My Lord, I have the honour to inclose copy of the Counter-DeclaGross- ration given yesterday by the Ottoman Commissioners to the Greek Pleni1. Sept. 1879. potentiaries in reply to the Declaration presented by the latter, of which a copy was transmitted to your Lordship in my despatch of the 23rd ultimo. I am informed, that M. Condouriotis was disposed to reject this Counter- Declaration, on the ground that it was a direct refusal on the part of the Porte to enter upon a discussion of the new frontier-line, and to break up the Conference. But M. Brailas suggested, that it should be referred to the Gross Hellenic Government, and that the instructions which he and his colleague Nr. 7088. might receive on the subject should be communicated to the Ottoman Com- britannien. missioners at their next meeting on Thursday next. || This suggestion was ac- 1. Sept. 1879. cepted by M. Condouriotis, and the meeting broke up without entering upon the question of the new frontier-line. || I have, &c. A. H. Layard. Beilage. Memorandum. A la première réunion des Plénipotentiaires du Gouvernement Impérial Ottoman et du Gouvernement Royal Hellénique pour la délimitation de la nouvelle frontière entre les deux pays, les Plénipotentiaires du Gouvernement Hellénique ont prié les Plénipotentiaires de la Sublime Porte de déclarer "S'ils acceptent comme base de la reprise des négociations les déterminations du Protocole 13 du Congrès de Berlin, à savoir, la Vallée du Calamas, en Epire, et celle du Penée, en Thessalie." || Les Plénipotentiaires Ottomans ont cru devoir faire remarquer que la question telle qu'elle est posée par les Plénipotentiaires Helléniques semble faire supposer que dans leur pensée la Sublime Porte aurait donné son adhésion aux indications inscrites au Protocole 13 au sujet d'une rectification de frontière en Epire et en Thessalie, et qu'elle serait dès lors tenue de considérer ces indications comme obligatoires de telle sorte qu'il lui serait interdit de proposer de discuter, et d'adopter aucun tracé qui n'aurait pas pour point de départ la Vallée du Salambria, sur le versant de la Mer Egée, et celle de Calamas du côté de la Mer Ionienne. || Les Commissaires Ottomans sont convaincus que les déclarations du Protocole 13 relatives à cet objet ne sauraient dans aucun cas recevoir l'interprétation que paraissent vouloir bien leur donner les Plénipotentiares Helléniques. Le Premier Plénipotentiaire de France, promoteur de cette déclaration, en a indiqué lui-même le véritable caractère en proposant au Congrès "d'indiquer d'une manière générale, et sans porter atteinte à la souveraineté de la Sublime Porte, les limites qu'il voudrait voir assigner à la Grèce." || Les termes mêmes de la déclaration adoptée à la suite de cette proposition confirment l'idée d'un simple voeu destiné à favoriser les négociations futures. On serait encore moins fondé à supposer que les Plénipotentiaires Ottomans à Berlin aient donné à cette déclaration une adhésion expresse ou tacite; ils ont fait au contraire à ce sujet les réserves les plus formelles, et le Président du Congrès a pris soin dans la séance du 11 Juillet, 1879, Protocole 18, de constater "que les Congrès exprimait un voeu, et non pas une résolution, à laquelle la Porte soit sollicitée de s'associer. Ces Puissances se bornent à exprimer qu'elles soient animées du désir de voir réussir les négociations, et sur ce point la Porte n'ayant pas d'opinion à donner ni de décision à prendre en Congrès." || Il paraît impossible d'établir plus clairement d'une part que le Gross Nr. 7088. tracé général, indiqué au Protocole 13, a été simplement suggéré, mais non britannien. déterminé, et encore moins imposé par les Puissances; et, d'autre part, que 1. Sept. 1879. la Sublime Porte non-seulement ne s'est liée à ce sujet par aucun engagement, mais encore que cet engagement ne lui a jamais été demandé. | Si les Plénipotentiaires Helléniques admettent cette explication, qui définit la véritable situation de la Sublime Porte, en ce qui touche la déclaration du Protocole 13, les Plénipotentiaires Ottomans déclarent être exposés par considération pour le voeu exprimé par les Puissances à prendre comme bases premières des négociations qui vont s'ouvrir, les indications mentionnées au dit Protocole, pourvu qu'il soit bien entendu que ces bases ne lient en aucune façon les deux Gouvernements, qui pourront librement les discuter et les modifier au même titre que tel autre point de départ qui aurait pu être proposé par l'une ou l'autre des parties. Nr. 7089. britannien. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Nr. 7089. Botschafter in Konstantinopel an den kgl. Bericht über die dritte Kommissionssitzung und den Stand der Angelegenheit. Therapia, September 6, 1879. My Lord, I had the honour of transmitting to your Lordship, in my Gross- despatches of the 23rd ultimo and 1st instant, the Declaration presented by 6. Sept. 1879. the Greek Commissioners at the first meeting of the Joint Commission for the delimitation of the new Greek frontier, and the Counter-Declaration of the Turkish Plenipotentiaries. I now beg to inclose the further Declaration of the Greek Commissioners given in at the third meeting held to-day, in which they decline to discuss whether the 13th Protocol of the Congress of Berlin is obligatory or not, and insist anew that the frontier indicated therein must be taken as a basis for negotiations. I would venture to offer a few observations to your Lordship on the present position of Turkey and Greece with regard to each other in this question. || It appears to me, that the Greek Commissioners were not justified in demanding, as a condition for resuming the negotiations broken off at Prevesa, that the Porte should previously accept what they term the "stipulations" of the 13th Protocol, that the valleys of the Kalamas and Peneus should form the new frontier of Greece as the basis for discussion. Passing over the assumption of the Greek Government, that the 13th Protocol is obligatory on the Turkish Government, and that the frontier-line indicated therein must be accepted as a "point de départ," and not as a simple recommendation to be considered and discussed, it seems to be unusual that one of the parties to a conference should declare, as the Gross condition, upon which he enters it, that the question at issue shall be decided Nr. 7089. in his favour before it has even been examined and been the subject of ne- britannien. gotiation. What, then, would be the use of the Conference? In the present 6. Sept. 1879. instance, the Declaration required of the Porte is so worded that, if it be agreed to, it will have the effect of binding the Turks to give to Greece, as the smallest concession, the line of frontier formed by the two valleys in question, whilst it leaves the Greeks at liberty to ask for more, and debars the Porte from proposing less. || The Counter-Declaration of the Turkish Commissioners seems to me to be in accordance with, and justified by, the 13th and 18th Protocols of Berlin. It points out, that the President of the Congress admitted that, in suggesting a line for the rectification of the Greek frontier, "the Congress expressed a wish, and not a resolution, with which the Porte should be asked to identify itself." It states the readiness of the Porte to accept the recommendations of the Congress as a basis for negotiations, on condition that they do not bind either party, but that each may freely discuss and propose modifications in the frontier-line indicated in the 13th Protocol. The Greek Government refuses to accept this basis for discussion, and declares, that it considers that Protocol obligatory as regards Greece. It is to be presumed that, unless the Turkish Commissioners, at the next meeting, are prepared to make the Declaration, upon which the Greek Government insists, it will break off the negotiations, and will appeal to the Signatory Powers for their mediation, under the XXIVth Article of the Treaty of Berlin. That Article provides that, in the event of the Sublime Porte and Greece being unable to agree upon the rectification of the frontier suggested in the 13th Protocol, the Powers reserve to themselves to offer their mediation to the two parties to "facilitate the negotiations." No negotiations, in the strict sense of the term, have yet taken place at Constantinople. The question of the new frontier-line has not been touched. Preliminary Declarations and Counter-Declarations have been exchanged, and that is all. Can the mediation of the Powers be claimed in the present stage of the proceedings, without any materials being placed before them for forming a judgment, except these documents? If their opinion is sought upon the merits of the case as it now stands, I venture to think that no impartial or unprejudiced person could hesitate in arriving at the conclusion that, so far, the Porte is in the right. If the mediation is to be exercised simply "to facilitate negotiations," the only advice that could be given to Greece is to enter upon them, and to bring them to such an issue that, if the mediation of the Powers becomes necessary, they may have before them the case of both sides what Greece demands and what Turkey is prepared to cede, and the arguments in support of their respective contentions. A discussion on the merits of the Greek Declarations and the Turkish Counter-Declarations could, it seems to me, lead to no other practical result. || It would scarcely be just or equitable on the part of the mediating Powers to call upon Turkey Gross Nr. 7089. to give a certain line of frontier to Greece without first hearing what she britannien, may have to say on the subject. The case of the Porte may be a very strong 6. Sept. 1879. one. It may be able to prove to the Powers, that it could not agree to the proposed extension of the Greek frontier without serious consequences to the Empire, and even to Europe. It might even be able to convince Greece that, in her own interests, it would be desirable that a part of the territory which she claims should not be ceded to her. It may fail in doing either, or in persuading the Powers to change their opinions; but at any rate it will not have to complain that it has been refused a fair hearing, and that the Powers have decided against Turkey without the knowledge and consideration of facts, upon which alone a just and impartial judgment could be formed. || The main question now at issue between Turkey and Greece is the cession of Janina. The Porte maintains, that the Albanians would oppose it by force of arms; that, if it attempted to coerce them an insurrection in Albania, which the Turkish Government would find itself unable to suppress, would be the result, that foreign interference might then become necessary, and the "Eastern Question" would be reopened. On the other hand, the Greek Government contend that, if there be any opposition on the part of the Albanians to the surrender of Janina, it is promoted and encouraged by the Porte itself, and that they are not only willing but desirous that it should belong to Greece. Which is right we have, at present, no means of knowing, as we are not yet acquainted with the proofs and facts which both parties may be able to produce in support of their assertions. When talking over these matters with Safvet-Pasha, privately and unofficially, I have advised him most earnestly to consider them with the strictest impartiality, and without allowing his judgment to be biased by exaggerated statements, or by menaces from either side. There could be no doubt, I have pointed out, that the cession of Janina to Greece would very much facilitate the settlement of this question, and might lead to the establishment of relations between her and the Porte which would be of the greatest advantage to Turkey herself, especially if England and France were prepared, as they appeared to be, to give a guarantee that they would not countenance any demands that Grecce might hereafter put forward for further increase of territory at her neighbour's expense. If Janina remained in the possession of Turkey, I said, Greece would not be satisfied till she had obtained it, and she would keep up a constant agitation, through her Agents and her intrigues, amongst the Christians of Epirus. The Porte would be compelled to take measures to maintain its authority in the province that might again compromise it in the eyes of Europe, and lead to another foreign intervention. The end would probably be that, sooner or later, Greece would obtain what she wanted. Again, if the Powers were to decide that Janina should remain to Turkey, it is probable that France, supported by them, would insist that additional territory in Thessaly should be given to Greece by way of compensation, and it is believed that the pass of Mezzovo would |