a de facto existence, her flag had been inaugurated by victories ; that flag was neither fanciful" nor "piratical," like that of the German Empire on the coast of Denmark; she possessed belligerent Rights and was at war, and is told that she can be communicated with only through the Representative of the Power with whom that war is being carried on!

If this reply was intended to repress inordinate hopes on the part of the Hungarians, the matter of it might be understood, however reprehensible the manner, but then it would have been carefully concealed from Austria, that her pretensions might not be inflamed. Yet a communication so evidently designed to prevent à settlement passes with success as proof that the opposite result had been desired and sought.

The salient features are: vehemence in the House of Commons, silence at St. Petersburgh; contradiction between Minister and Ambassador; the adoption of opposite sides in reference to a war by the British embassies, that of Vienna rejoicing in every defeat of the one party, that of Constantinople exulting in every check of the other, and all combining in one result: whoever recoils from the admission of system, must fall back on incoherence; but in such a case, to what must incoherence lead?

The result, however, of the war wholly hinged upon a point excluded from view, or fallaciously disguised under the terms "Turkish Neutrality." He, whoever he was, who reduced the Ottoman Empire to that predicament, and not Prince Paskiewitch, placed Hungary at the " feet of the Czar."

FOR all military purposes Turkey was a party in the war; she did not send forward Armies, but she lent her territory for the Russian operations, along a frontier of several hundred miles; opening passages through the mountains of the North and East into Transylvania, which otherwise would have been inaccessible, and giving entrance from the South through the gorge of the Danube into the plains of Lower Hungary. The resources of these Provinces-money, provisions, and means of transport, were also usurped by Russia, and rendered subservient to the war. The Austrians when beaten found refuge there, and supplies, and thence they again issue to attack Hungary. The Russian armies did not indeed enter Serbia, but there also were organised bodies of Invasion, not perhaps dangerous in the field, but calculated to excite intestine feuds by their relationship to the populations of the Banat. The enlistment took place under the auspices of the Russian Consul, and the money was paid at "the Consulate." These effects were not limited to the period when Russia became a party in the war, but were in operation from its very commencement, and the Russian troops themselves had been engaged in Transylvania three months before the avowed Intervention took place. Had Turkey remained neutral, the Hungarians would have been secure on the whole of their Southern and Eastern frontiers, and could have brought up their entire disposable force to the North; so that the results in a military point of view, may be said to have been determined by the participation of Turkey in the war.

Her

This participation was, however, not voluntary. readiness, after the fall of Hungary, to meet the combined

forces of Russia and Austria to save a few of the exiles from an ignominious fate, dispenses me from the necessity of proving that the Turkish nation was ready to incur the risks, and undergo the sacrifices of a war to save Hungary, and the desistance of those two Empires from pressing their demand after, as I shall presently show, they had received the concurrence of England and France, equally relieves me from the necessity of proving, that its military resources were equal to such an enterprise. Turkey had at the time 212,000 disciplined men, and could have raised, without difficulty, 100,000 irregular horse, the whole of which she could have sent forward without any inconvenience or risk. She could have supplied the Hungarians with arms, of which they were principally in need, and the presence of a single Turkish regiment would have changed the whole face of the contest in Hungary.

If then the participation of Turkey in the war on the side of Russia influenced the result, the assurance of her nonparticipation on the side of Hungary was requisite for its inception. It was a wonderful plan to combine, and it was settled in anticipation. It entirely depended upon the introduction of a Russian force into the Turkish Provinces of the Danube, which was executed when the Hungarian war was as yet undreamt of, save by visionaries, and when no difference existed between Russia and the Porte. It was, therefore, a direct attack upon the Integrity of the Ottoman Empire, and a violation of the Treaty of 1840, to which England, but not France, was a party. It could only, therefore, be carried by the concurrence of England; the evidence of that concurrence is to be found, not only in the absence of all opposition but in the effectual support given at Constantinople, and the declarations made in the House of Commons, where the English Minister stated falsely, that it was a measure undertaken with the consent and concurrence of the Turkish Government.* This Occupation was then sanctioned

See Speeches, 1st Sept. 1848; 2d March, 1849; 22d March, 1849

by a Treaty, against which the Turkish Government, in vain, sought the support of the English Ambassador, and by that Treaty it was to continue to the year 1856. Henceforward the "Neutrality" of Turkey was practicable only by the cessation of the Occupation by Russia, against which such precautions had been taken. That "Neutrality" could be observed only by saying to Russia, "you shall not enter;" it could not be maintained by saying, "you shall not go out.' Had the Russian troops been on the Pruth, the Turkish troops would have been at Pesth; but the Russian troops, being on the Danube, it was the Cossacks who arrived at Pesth. And it is England who has compromised the Porte into this false position, who urges upon it the maintenance of its "Neutrality."

Reduced to this dilemma, the "Neutrality" of Turkey had merely reference to the departure of the Russian troops from Wallachia, where alone their presence had been endured on the score of their being required to maintain internal tranquillity; at least, it was not by urging at Constantinople the maintenance of Turkish "Neutrality" no more than by writing to St. Petersburgh, that it had nothing to say respecting the "neutrality" of Russia, that is, the Invasion of Hungary, that any results could be obtained in the sense of the principles expounded to Parliament on the 21st July, 1849.

The entrance, in June, 1848, of the Russian troops into the Provinces had indeed been, according to the British Minister, "without orders from St. Petersburgh." On the 1st of February, 1849, these insubordinate and erratic forces, equally "without orders," enter Transylvania! Immediately, Sir Stratford Canning says to the Porte :

:

"I do not doubt that my Government will consider the said Intervention as prejudicing the rights of the Porte, and as calculated to make a most painful impression on the Porte, owing to the serious consequences which may follow." He writes home (4th February) that the French Ambassador had read to him a Despatch, "Which expressed goodwill towards the Porte, and a just sense of all that was objection

able in the late proceedings of Russia. We separated with an understanding that our respective interpreters should wait on Aali Pasha this morning with instructious calculated to encourage the Porte in maintaining substantially the view taken by its Commissioner at Bucharest of the Military Intervention in Transylvania authorised by the Russian Government”*

Lord Palmerston answers, February 28th

"I have to observe to your Excellency on this matter, that undoubtedly the passage of Russian troops through Turkish territory for the purpose of interfering in the civil war in the Austrian dominions, was an infraction of the neutrality which the Porte had determined to adopt in regard to that civil war, and was a fit subject of remonstrance on the part of the Porte."

As if he were speaking of a theme for a sonnet, or a subject for an essay. Sir Stratford Canning writes again on the 5th April—

"The Porte has not materially relaxed its preparations for an untoward contingency. Besides the circumstances which I have mentioned elsewhere, fresh orders have been sent to repair the defences of Varna and Silistria; the Militia is collecting in the adjacent Province of Broussa, and the Pasha of

* The Consul at Bucharest thus details the views of the Turkish Commissioner, Fuad Effendi, 22d February, 1847 :-"His Excellency begged General Duhamel to consider the effect of such a departure from all the principles of non-intervention which European Cabinets had laid down, that such a measure might lead to the adoption of a line of conduct on the part of France towards Austria on the Italian question, which France herself would regret to be forced to adopt ; that any measure of this nature was an infraction of the law of nations, and of the treaty of 1841, to which Russia herself was a party; and that, in the name of the Sultan, as his Representative, he declared himself opposed to the movement.

"I must do Fuad" (Effendi?) "the justice to say I found him firm and consistent, and resolved to continue so; but very anxious for instructions from Constantinople.

"These are critical and difficult times, and I hope your Excellency will continue to favour me with your kind advice and instructions."