Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

repulsed and betrayed in her attempted federation with England in reference to the Danube, had joined in the confiscation of Cracow. Russia was thus doubly in flagrant hostility against England; yet, at the mouths of the Danube, there were soundings for line-of-battle ships. It was nine days after this declaration that she signed a Treaty sent from St. Petersburgh (15 July, 1840) which stipulates the eventual occupation of the Turkish capital by a Russian military and naval force; the Foreign Secretary justified this step by his "entire conviction" of Russia's good faith, and the identity of her policy and interests with those of Great Britain.

But the consequence of the act which more particularly concerns us is the Danube Treaty between Austria and Russia. It stipulates that those vessels only are to enter which belong to countries "having a right to navigate the Black Sea," and who "are at peace with Russia.”* In 1822, she in like manner claimed the right of converting the North Pacific into a mare clausum: the pretension was indeed abandoned, but only in consequence of the undiplo matic resolution of the Americans to arm their trading vessels. She has obtained the exclusion of the men-of-war of all European countries from the Black Sea: the next step is to make it a mare clausum also for merchantmen. As regards any resistance from the Western Powers she has nothing to apprehend; there remains to dare nothing more than what she has done. She has baffled every attempt of the House of Commons, of the Sovereign of England, of the Government of Austria, to open the river which she has closed. She has done so without having to apply force, or to utter threats. Her preponderance and conquests are secured on the prostration of character and honour in the

*Treaty of the Danube between Austria and Russia, July, 1840 "Les navires marchands Autrichiens, ainsi que ceux de toute autre nation, ayant le droit de navigeur dans la mer noire, et qui est en paix avec la Russie, pourront entrer librement dans les embouchures navigables de Danube, le remonter, le descendre, &c."

Parliament of England-a securer ground of dominion than any strength of her own.

The difficulty of credence constitutes here the difficulty of sight people cannot trust their very eyes. But the same process has been over and over again repeated in the Treaties proposed with Persia, Turkey, the small states of Italy, Naples, and France. In respect to the latter Lord Palmerston, on the 1st of March, 1848, coupled it with that of Turkey, and attributed to me its "details." The general bearing of all coincided with that with Turkey,— -on that the battle had been fought, and that carried, the plan of a general league of free commercial intercourse followed as a matter of course : I had no more than this to do with either the French, Austrian, or Neapolitan Treaties: I was, however, conversant with them in every stage, from the beginning to the end. Well, the Treaty with France was a matter of the gravest importance, it opened the prospect of traffic to the amount of many millions yearly. The gentleman selected for the negotiation refused to go Paris, unless on the assurance that Lord Palmerston would not be allowed to interfere; he received that assurance, and it availed him nothing. All this has been alleged in Parliament, and Lord Palmerston is

Mr. Porter, then of the Board of Trade, has lately been promoted to a higher office. I presume, therefore, that he enjoys the confidence of the colleagues of the noble Lord. Now, on this gentleman's being selected in 1840,-before the Treaty of July,-by the then colleagues of the noble lord, in consequence of his connection with the Board of Trade, to negotiate a treaty of commerce with France, Mr. Porter informed those ministers that he was confident that, whatever treaty he might negotiate for such a purpose, would be interfered with by the noble lord,--and either brought to nothing, or, as in the case of the Turkish treaty, perverted to the ruin of its objects. Mr. Porter, therefore, demanded and obtained this condition from the then ministry that the treaty should be kept out of the Foreign Office; and that he should not be called upon to report to, or to receive any instructions whatever from the noble lord, or his department, in the conduct of that negotiation. On the faith of that condition alone he undertook the mission. It is further stated, on the same gentleman's authority, and in the same document, that he brought

silent; had it been groundless, nothing could have been more easy than a refutation ?

Thus were cast away at once the good-will and co-operation of the Austrian Government, which while setting free the Danube, would have unlocked the resources of the Provinces, and, at a time when restrictive barriers were raised against them in the West, have afforded an entrance to British goods into Germany. On the 1st of June, 1829, Lord Palmerston declared an "Austro-Turkish alliance to be "dangerous" to England; in 1838, he substituted for it an Austro-Russian.

[ocr errors]

But the Treaty was to have been tripartite, including Turkey, so that the three Governments would have been united in a league for mutual defence, their common shield would have been planted on the Pruth, the link uniting the Principalities with Turkey would have been strengthened, the attempts of Russia to implant her influence foiled, and, under the shadow of this security, those resources would be developed, which in course of time would have quietly removed Russia from her menacing position as an ambitious Power.

Considering what England's conduct has been, how wonderful that such a plan should have emanated from its own breast, how much more so, that having so emanated, its own Minister had to thwart it, and most of all, that he should have been successful in doing so by the ignorance of the Parliamentary Leaders, of the commonest geographic facts, and of the application of the Navigation Laws. Though Russia has her all at stake, by that ignorance alone has she saved her venture.

the matter to a happy conclusion—and that in spite of the precautions he had taken, and the conditions he had exacted, that treaty was at length set aside by the noble lord. There is no doubt that the direct act of the noble lord occasioned this failure. I state this on the authority of Mr. Porter, and I refer to the fact of his recent appointment, as showing, that notwithstanding that declaration was made in 1841, the noble lord has not induced his colleagues to disgrace that gentleman."-Speech of Mr. Anstey, 23d Feb. 1818.

Still the configuration of the soil admitted of her being cut out practically; the ancient mouth of the Danube stands in reference to the present one, much as the Eyder does to the Sound. To this subject I have devoted a chapter; it is part of the history of the past, if too late as suggesting measures for the future.

317

CHAPTER IV.

Apology for Russia.

As these pages are passing through the press an incident of a very extraordinary nature has occurred. The Minister who has so long managed Europe from the British Foreign Office, but whom it has been judged prudent or expedient to exclude from that Office, has suddenly resumed its functions in the House of Commons; the occasion is the shutting up of English vessels in the Danube, which he takes advantage of to resume what he himself has done in reference to the Danube, to explain the motives of Russia, and to exhibit in his fashion the results. To this conversation I may well devote a chapter, seeing that it is itself a monument of brass.

NAVIGATION OF THE DANUBE.

House of Commons, July 7, 1853. Mr. LIDDELL asked, whether any instructions had been sent out by Her Majesty's Government to inquire into the case of British vessels at present detained in the Danube, owing to the imperfect state of the navigation of that river; and whether, in the event of hostilities with Russia before such ships could be liberated, a sufficient force would be sent out to that part to prevent their falling into the hands of hostile powers?

Lord PALMERSTON.-The recent obstruction of the navi gation of the Sulina channel of the Danube has been caused by the accidental circumstances of the waters of the river having overflowed and spread over the banks, and so far diminished the force of the current as to increase the quantity of mud on the bar. This particular inconve

« AnteriorContinuar »