The tolls reserved for Holland were bought up by Belgium in 1863, with the help of contributions from 21 nations and free towns.1

The principal regulations were made in 1843.2

§ 18. The Elbe.

On May 18, 1815, Prussia and Saxony signed an agreement to apply the principles of the Congress of Vienna to the Elbe (Article XVII, Annex 4, of the Final Act of the Congress of Vienna).

On June 23, 1821, Prussia, Austria, Saxony, Hanover, Denmark (acting for Holstein and Lauenburg), Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Anhalt-Bernburg, Coethen and Dessau, and the free town of Hamburg agreed: 3

1. That the navigation of the Elbe should be entirely free with respect to commerce; but the coasting trade between riparian States was reserved to riparian subjects (Article I).

2. That all privileges and many dues and tolls should be suppressed, a general navigation due being collected in fourteen toll-houses (Articles II, III, VII, XVI).

The Stade or Brunshausen tolls, however, were reserved (Article XV); but this reservation itself was gradually swept away.1

The Weser.

On September 10, 1823, Prussia, Hanover, HesseCassel, Brunswick, Oldenburg, Lippe, and the free city

1 State Papers, liii, pp. 8-19.

2 Text in Murhard, Nouveau Recueil (1843), v, pp. 294 sqq. For more details generally, and especially on the subject of the waterways connecting Belgium with the Rhine, and on war buoying on the Scheldt, see Kaeckenbeeck, International Rivers, $$ 89-97.

3 State Papers, viii. 953 sqq.

4 For details, see Kaeckenbeeck, International Rivers, Appendix I.

of Bremen, in order to apply the principles of the Congress of Vienna to the Weser, decided, in an Act of Navigation at Minden:1

1. That the navigation of the Weser should be entirely free with regard to commerce, except that the coasting trade was reserved to the subjects of the riparian States (Article I).

2. That all exclusive privileges-with two exceptions -all duties of staple and of breaking cargo, and the former dues should be abolished (Articles II, III, XIV); new dues, shared by the riparian States, being stipulated for (Article XV).

The Rivers and Canals of Poland.

Article XIV of the Final Act of Vienna related to the free navigation of the rivers and canals of the former Kingdom of Poland according to principles set forth in two treaties made in Vienna (May 3, 1815) between Austria and Russia (Annex I of Final Act), and between Russia and Prussia (Annex II): viz. navigation could not be forbidden to any of the inhabitants of the Polish provinces.

This led to arrangements between Prussia and Russia on December 7-19, 1818; 2 and between Russia and Austria on August 5-17, 1818.3

The Po.

Article XCVI of the Final Act of Vienna provided for the application to the Po of the principles of the Congress of Vienna. A Commission was therefore appointed. It proceeded by stages, and did not reach. a definitive solution until July 3, 1849, when a Convention signed in Milan by Austria and the Duchies

1 De Martens and Saalfeld, Nouveau Recueil, vi, part I, pp. 301 sqq. 2 De Martens, Traités conclus par la Russie, vii, p. 331. Ibid., iv. 61, No. 108.

of Parma and Modena provided for free navigation for all without any burden.

The regime thus created was confirmed in 1859 (Treaty of Zürich, November 10), and lasted until 1866, when the Po became a national river. The principle of free navigation for all, however, has not ceased to be applied.

(ii) THE DANUBE

§ 19. The Treaty of Paris (1856).

The Congress of Vienna had not concerned itself with the Danube, since Turkey had not yet been admitted to the European State system. Not until the morrow of the Crimean War were the interests of Europe so asserted as to impose the complete opening of that river. This was done by the Powers at the Congress of Paris, where the two following clauses were accepted as preliminaries:

'The freedom of the Danube and of its mouths shall be effectually secured by European institutions, in which the contracting Powers shall be equally represented, without prejudice to the special position of the riparian Powers, which shall be settled upon the principles established by the Act of the Congress of Vienna on the subject of river navigation.

Each of the contracting Powers shall have the right of stationing one or two light vessels of war at the mouth of the river for the purpose of insuring the execution of the regulations relative to the liberty of the Danube.'

At the fifth sitting of the Congress of Paris (March 6, 1856) Count Walewski (France) presented a draft; but, from the first, a divergence of opinion had arisen as to whether the attention of the Congress was to be confined to the Lower Danube, as Austria wished, or extended to the whole course of the river, as Great Britain and France demanded. In the end Austria yielded, with the proviso that the application of the

principles to the Upper Danube should be combined with the engagements previously taken bona fide by the riparian Powers'. Amendments to Count Walewski's draft were accordingly proposed; and five Articles resulted which were to become Articles XV-XIX of the treaty of peace.1

Article XV expressly stipulates for the application of the principles established in 1815 by the Congress of Vienna to the Danube and its mouths; and the contracting Powers declare that this arrangement henceforth forms a part of the public law of Europe, and is placed under their guarantee'.

6

Article XVI, § 2, determining what dues may be levied, stipulates that, in this respect, as in every other, the flags of all nations shall be treated on the footing of perfect equality'.

From these two Articles it appears as though, by common consent, the Great Powers had recognized the binding character in Europe of Articles CVIIICXVII of the Final Act of the Treaty of Vienna, and declared themselves for good and all in favour of the wider interpretation of Article CIX.2

In addition, two Commissions are created :

(a) A European Commission,3 consisting of delegates from Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia, Russia,

1 Kaeckenbeeck, International Rivers, §§ 109-124. See the text of the Articles in Appendix III, p. 62.

2 Austria, however, denied this in 1858, and attempted to narrow the interpretation of the Articles of 1856 by referring to the restrictive interpretation of the Articles of 1815. See Kaeckenbeeck, op. cit., §§ 135-6.

3 The expression European syndicate' had been used first, but Prince Gortchakoff declared that, if the word 'syndicate' implied the exercise of any right of sovereignty whatever, he could not assent to it. European commission is used in the definitive wording. See, on the Preliminaries of the Treaty of Paris (1856), Kaeckenbeeck, International Rivers, §§ 99–106.

Sardinia, and Turkey, and entrusted with the execution of the works necessary to render the mouths of the Danube navigable by removing all impediments. It was to be temporary, and it could levy dues, at a reasonable rate, to cover its expenses.

(b) A Riparian (Riverain) Commission, consisting of delegates from Austria, Bavaria, the Sublime Porte, and Württemberg, and entrusted with the preparation of Regulations and the improvement and maintenance of the navigability of the river. It was to be permanent, and was to take up the functions of the European Commission on its dissolution.

§ 20. The Act of Navigation (1857), the Public Act (1865), and the Treaty of London (1871).

In fact, while the European Commission never ceased to exist, the Riparian Commission endured but a short time. The Regulations which it elaborated in 1857 were rejected in 1858 by France and England as contrary to the spirit of the treaties.1 Some concessions were made by the riparian States and embodied in six additional Articles; 2 but they were insufficient, and no agreement was reached. Soon after this the sittings of the Riparian Commission were discontinued.

The work of the European Commission, on the other hand, was so much appreciated, that the plenipotentiaries of the Powers extended the duration of the Commission and decided to endow it with a kind of

1 For an analysis of the controversy see Kaeckenbeeck, International Rivers, §§ 126-40. For the complete text of the Act of Navigation, see Parliamentary Papers: Turkey, No. 29 (1878) [C. 2006], No. 6. The principal objections of the Powers were levelled at the differential treatment of riparians and non-riparians, the monopoly of the coasting trade by the former, the omission of the tributaries, and the vagueness of the provisions relative to quarantine. 2 Parliamentary Papers [C. 2006], No. 9.