« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
and the public with the documents I seek to have produced. The motion I have risen to make is this :--Than an humble address be presented to his Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, copies of any treaty or treaties which have been concluded between the Russian and Turkish Governments, since the 1st of January 1833, and which have been officially communicated to the British Government; together with copies of any correspondence between his Majesty's Government and the Russian and Turkish Govern. ments, relative to the said treaties.'
I proceed at once to the statement of the facts, the incidents, and the documents, on which I rely. I shall not take any remote period, but commence at the autumn of the year 1831. In the autumn of that year the forces of the Pacha of Egypt began their march ; on the 3rd of December 1831, the siege of Acre was commenced; in May 1832, Acre fell; Ibrahim proceeded on his march, and advanced into Syria; on the 14th of June, Damascus was taken. In July 1832, another great battle was fought, and Ibrahim advanced upon Taurus; he passed it. Any one who will give the slightest examination to the relative position of the two armies must see that the success of Ibrahim was inevitable. This was the state of affairs in July 1832. What was the course adopted by Turkey? She applied for aid to Eng. land. The fact is admitted, in a speech made by the noble lord in this House on the 11th of July 1833. It was further admitted by the noble lord, that if this country had then thought proper to interfere, its interference would have been effectual.
Mr. SHEIL.—It is so stated. It has also been stated, but I know not whether on good authority, that the application of Turkey to this country for assistance was sustained by Russia, which power is said to have intimated her wish, or solicited, that the aid asked by Turkey should be given : England refused her assistance. That fact will not be questioned; it remains to be explained. It was asked at the time, why assistance was not
given to our ancient ally? But the events which subsequently happened gave retrospective force to the interrogatory; for it is
possible not to ask, with a sentiment stronger than mere curiosity, why it was that Turkey, when she sought our assistance, was thrown upon Russia as her only resource? The refusal having been given, is it not a most extraordinary circumstance that England sent no ambassador to Constantinople? The war began in October, 1831; Acre fell in May, 1832; Damascus, in June, 1832; the Taurus was passed; aid was asked from and refused by England; and yet no ambassador was sent from England! Let the noble lord, if he will have the goodness to note the questions I ask in the course of my statement, tell us how it happened that the war had been concluded two months before the English minister arrived at Constantinople? The battle of Koniah was fought on the 21st of September, 1932; and although this progress of Ibrahim attracted the attention of Europe, it does not seem to have induced the English Cabinet to give any acceleration to the movements of my Lord Ponsonby. He was appointed, I believe, in December, 1832 ; but he did not arrive in Constantinople till May, 1833, after the battle of Koniah had been fought, and application had been made by Turkey to Russia; and indeed after—as it is stated upon authority, I believe, worthy of credit, and which it will remain for the noble lord to confirm or contradict-Russia had written to the Sultan in the language of fraternal or diplomatic endearment, making him a tender of the assistance of Russia, whether that assistance was required by sea or by land. On the 17th of February, the French admiral, Roussin, arrived at Constantinople, and this leads me to remark upon a circumstance deserving of notice. It is this,that not only England, but France, had no ambassador at Constantinople during the progress of the events I have mentioned. The reason of France being thus situated is said to be, that General Guilleminot, who had been there as ambassador, having suggested to the Porte, on the breaking out of the Polish insurrection, that that was a good opportunity to repair the disasters
and injuries of the war which terminated in the treaty of Adrianople, Prince Pozzo di Borgo applied to the French minister Sebastiani, to have him removed. I mention this as a kind of excuse for England, because France, having only a Chargé d'Affaires, it may be said that we were not called upon to have more than a Secretary of Legation. Admiral Roussin having arrived on the 17th of February, he on the 19th of February remonstrated with the Divan on the fatal effects to the Turkish empire which must result from calling in Russia as an auxiliary. On the very next day the Russian fleet appeared in the Bosphorus. There was however no immediate disembarkation. The French admiral remonstrated, but the English ambassador was not there to remonstrate, for Lord Ponsonby was relieving himself at Naples from the fatigues of his diplomatic negotiations in Belgium. An effort was made however to induce Ibrahim to retreat, but all it led to was the raising a question respecting the possession of Armenia. In that question, Admiral Roussin said he would not interfere, not wishing to concern himself in the domestic quarrels of the parties. He accordingly retired, and 20,000 Russians encamped on the Asiatic shore of the Bosphorus. Complete possession having been taken of Constantinople, Count Orloff arrived, if not before Lord Ponsonby, to much better purpose; for whilst he seemed to be engaged in the show and festivities of the capital, and the illuminations of their seraglio, he was all the while effecting a clandestine treaty with the Sultan, not only without the intervention, but without the knowledge of the English or French embassies. That was the treaty of the 8th of July, the production of which I seek from the noble lord. I have now, by a succinct narrative, brought down my statement to that important period, the 8th of July, 1833, the date of the subjugation of Turkey; not I hope of the dishonour of England. When was that treaty known by the noble lord ? I may mention by the way a remarkable circumstance which took place in the House of Commons on the 11th of July.
My honourable friend who sits beside me (the member for Coventry) moved for certain papers respecting the recent transactions between Russia, Turkey, and Mehemet Ali. On that occasion the noble lord opposite pronounced a speech reflecting the highest credit on his diplomatic abilities. The noble lord stated, as a reason for not producing the papers, that the events to which they related conld hardly be said to be brought to a close, and that the documents asked for ought not to be produced till a diplomatic wind-up had been arrived at; but he expressed sentiments worthy of a proselyte of Mr. Canning, observing that it was quite a mistake to suppose that England was not prepared to go to war if honour and dignity required it; mentioning, at the same time, that assistance had been refused to Turkey. This being on the 11th of July, the noble lord of course was not aware of the treaty of the 8th of July. How did the English public become acquainted with that treaty ? Or perhaps the more proper question would be—how did the noble lord become acquainted with it? The noble lord obtained his first information touching, I will not say the details and particulars, but the substance of that treaty, from a letter which appeared in the Morning Herald, on the 21st of August, 1833, from its correspondent at Constantinople. In this letter it was stated that Count Orloff had succeeded completely in throwing dust into the eyes of the English and French ambassadors; for that, whilst he appeared to be absorbed in all the gaieties of the Turkish metropolis, he was in reality prosecuting the deep and dark designs which Russia had so long entertained; and that on the 8th of July he had induced the Sultan to conclude an offensive and defensive treaty, admitting the virtual surrender to Russian dominion of all the rights of Turkey.
The particulars of that treaty, beyond three articles, the writer did not pretend to know; but he added, that the next day Count Orloff set off for St. Petersburg; that the greatest confusion and dismay prevailed among the other diplomatic bodies; and that they had despatched couriers to their respective courts. This
letter was brought under the attention of the House of Commons on the 24th of August, by the honourable and gallant member for Westminster, on which occasion the noble lord stated in his place, that of the treaty of the Sth of July he officially knew nothing whatever ; the only information he had upon the subject being through the medium of the public journals, upon whose activity he passed a just panegyric-an activity which certainly on that occasion much surpassed that of the agents of the Government. The noble lord on that occasion admitted a second time that Turkey had asked for assistance from England before applying for it to Russia. I have now brought myself down to the 24th of August, 1833. On the 29th of August the King delivered his speech from the throne on the prorogation of Parliament. With these facts, or these rumours, which at all events ultimately turned out fatal facts—with all these circumstances before it—the Cabinet advised his Majesty to declare in his speech from the throne—and that speech must constitutionally be considered the speech of his Majesty's Ministersthat the relations between Turkey and England remained undisturbed.
Let the House bear in mind that the noble lord, if he had not received the despatch forwarded to him on the 9th of July, certainly had had his attention called to the treaty of the 8th of July on the 14th of August; and yet he persuades his colleagues to advise his Majesty to say on the 29th of August,
"The hostilities which had disturbed the peace of Turkey have been terminated; and you may be assured that my attention will be carefully directed to any events which may affect the present state or the future independence of that empire.'
I now pass at once to the month of October in the same year. In October, M. La Grenée, the French Chargé d'Affaires, addressed a letter to Count Nesselrode of a most remarkable kind. Considering the close junction which subsisted between the Courts of St. James's and the Tuilleries—a junction which I hope still continues—considering the fidelity of that alliance to be