« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
mutual—it is hardly too much to look upon this note as if it came from the noble lord himself sitting in Downing-street. This note of M. La Grenée was written in October, but was not published in Paris till the 23rd of December, 1833, when it came before the whole of the European public. I pray the particular attention of the House to this note. Our attention has lately been directed to matters of domestic interest and immediate pressure; but be it remembered, that events are now going on which are fraught with consequences
affect our domestic interests as much as others which only appear larger because more near. The note of M. La Grenée to Count Nesselrode runs thus:
"The undersigned Chargé d'Affaires of his Majesty the King of the French has received orders to express to the Cabinet of St. Petersburg the profound affliction felt by the French Government on learning the conclusion of the treaty of the 8th of July last, between his Majesty the Emperor of Russia and the Grand Seignior. In the opinion of the King's Government, this treaty assigns to the inutual relations existing between the Ottoman Empire and Russia a new character, against which the powers of Europe have a right to protest.'
To this note Count Nesselrode replied in the following curt, offensive, and almost contumelious language :
'It is true that this act changes the nature of the relations between Russia and the Porte, for in the room of long-continued hostilities it substitutes that friendship and that confidence in wbich the Turkish Government will henceforth find a guarantee for its stability and the necessary means of defence, calculated to ensure its preservation. In this conviction, and guided by the purest and most disinterested intentions, his Majesty the Emperor is resolved, in case of necessity, to discharge faithfully the obligations imposed on him by the treaty of the 8th of July, thus acting as if the declaration contained in the note of Monsieur La Grenée had no existence.'
St. Petersburg, Oct., 1833.'
This note is taken from the Augsburgh Gazette, to which it purports to have been transmitted in a letter from Paris on the 23rd of December. Here let one remark be made, which will not trench on the distinct classification of facts. If the French Government remonstrated, it is to be presumed that the noble lord did not remain silent. Where is his correspondence? Was a note as affronting written in reply, or was it even couched in more caustic phraseology, and in the same style of contemptuous repudiation as the article in the St. Petersburg Gazette on the presumption of our interference in the affairs of Poland? To return to dates and facts-on the 1st of January, Pozzo di Borgo addressed the King of the French, and on that occasion the accomplished Corsican pronounced on Louis Philippe an eulogium, accompanied with protestations, characteristic of both-of the party who indulged in, and the party who was graciously pleased to accept, the hollow panegyric. Six days after in bringing up the address, M. Bignon delivered a speech which was received with equal surprise and acclamation. He denounced the conduct of Russia towards Poland, and held out the aggressions upon Turkey as indicative of that deep and settled purpose of which he had in his official capacity a perfect cognizance. In 1807, he said, Alexander had tendered all Southern Europe to Napoleon, provided Napoleon would give him what he called at once in homely but powerful diction—the key of his own house-Constantinople. That offer was refused; the consequences were foreseen by Napoleon. M. Bignon then warned France to beware of the advances of Russian power in the East, and denounced, while he revealed her policy, and invoked his countrymen to awaken to a sense of the insults offered to the dignity of France, and the violation offered to her rights. To this speech the Duc de Broglie made an answer conspicuous in itself, and which his subscquent conduct rendered still more remarkable. pressed his unqualified concurrence in all that had been said, and thanked M. Bignon for having given expression to the senti. ments which he and his colleazues entertained. On the very next day this very man went do:rn to the Chamber, and made a
speech which was received with astonishment by both countries. He contended that no violation of treaty had taken place, expressed satisfaction with Russian policy, and stated that there had been no material alteration made respecting the passage of the Dardanelles. M. Thiers, in reply to M. Mauguin, said nearly the same thing; and although La Grenée's note was yet fresh in every memory, and the Duc de Broglie's approval of Bignon's speech was ringing in every ear, expressed no sort of discontent at any one of the incidents which had taken place. M. Thiers, however, incidentally acknowledged that it was a part of the treaty, that all vessels of powers at war with Russia should be excluded from the passage of the Dardanelles. Our own Parliament did not meet until the 5th of February; but before it assembled an accident occurred which remains to be explained. The French and English Aeets united, proceeded to the Dardanelles, which Russia had spared no expense to fortify; and, having displayed the tricolor, and the meteor flag of England,' as it has been nobly called, near the spot where Sir George Duckworth, when Lord Grey was Secretary for Foreign Affairs, expended a good deal of powder without much avail, both fleets sailed away, and instead of proceeding to Smyrna, gave a preference to a more distant and far less commodious harbour, where however Russian influence was not quite so predominant as in that celebrated haven. The glory of this expedition belongs to the First Lord of the Admiralty; but it is to be conjectured that the achievement was suggested by the genius of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. But in what did it result? That remains to be told; and for the satisfaction of that curiosity I this night afford an opportunity. Parliament met on the 5th. The King's speech informed us that the integrity of the Porte was for the future to be preserved (the Sultan having been first stripped, and then manacled), and that his Majesty continued to receive assurances which did not disturb his confidence that peace would be preserved. The Duke of Wellington, in another place, adverted to the treaty of Constantinople, and Lord Grey retorted Adrianople upon his Grace. But in the treaty of Adri
anople there was, at all events, nothing that infringed upon our rights as to the navigation of the Black Sea; and it is to be recollected that whatever the First Lord of the Treasnry might have said, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs declared that, 'while he desired peace, of war he was not in the least afraid.' In this House no interrogatories were put. On the 24th of February the following paragraph appeared in the Globe, which, from its being the supposed organ of Government, deserves great attention, the more especially as we are left to the newspapers for our intelligence. The article stated
' Another treaty between Russia and Turkey has been concluded at St. Petersburg, which was signed by Achmet Pacha on the 29th of last month. . . Enough has transpired to satisfy the most jealous that its spirit is pacific, and indeed advantageous to the Turkish empire. The Porte is relieved from the pressure of the engagements imposed upon her at Adrianople; and we understand that the Principalities, with the exception of Silistria, will shortly be evacuated, and the sum exacted by the former treaty reduced one-third. Such relaxations of positive engagements are proofs either of the moderation and good sense of Russia, or of the influence which the union of England and France, and the firm and concerted language of those two powers, have acquired in the councils of St. Petersburg.'
Is it not reasonable that this treaty should be laid before the House? It is to be observed, that in any account of it, either in our journals or in the Allgemeine Zeitung, not one word is said of the passage of the Dardanelles. The principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia, indeed, are to be evacuated. That circumstance is u mere delusion; for Wallachia and Moldavia are as much dependent on Russia as if they had actually been transferred. Their hospodars are virtually nominated by Russia ; no Turk can reside in the country; and every appointment down to that of the humblest officer, is affected through Russian dictation. Silistria is retained—the key of the lower Danube, commanding all Bulgaria, and a place so important that the Greek
Emperors constructed a wall there to protect their frontier, and guard against the incursions of the barbarians. As to the remission of money, that concession is made to an insolvent debtor; it is not the first time that Russia has adopted the same course; the payment of a tribute is of little moment from a country which is almost incorporated in her dominions, and will soon meet the fate of so many of the Turkish provinces; but how does this treaty modify or affect that of the 8th of July ? It does not at all relate to it. It concerns the treaty of Adrianople; and as long as we have nothing else on this question, the House is entitled to receive adequate information from the Government. With respect to the Dardanelles, a matter of signal importance to England-affecting her commerce—affecting not only the navigation of the Euxine, but giving Russia a control over Greece and the entire Archipelago,-it may be as well to state with brevity the treaties that existed between England and Turkey, and those that existed between Russia and Turkey, previous to that regarding which information is demanded. I will not go back to the reign of Elizabeth. By the treaty of 1675, concluded by Sir John Finch, the navigation of all the Turkish seas was secured to England. In 1809, a little time after our rupture with the Porte, produced by the attack on the Dardanelles, a new treaty was executed, by which the passage of the Dardanelles and the canal of Constantinople was secured to England. The llth article provided, that in time of peace no ship of war should pass, no matter to what country it might belong. In 1774, by the treaty of Kaynadgi, the passage of the Dardanelles was first secured to Russian merchant vessels. In 1780 a quarrel took place respecting an armed vessel. In 1783 a new treaty was entered into, and another in 1792 (that treaty by which the Crimea, just like Greece, was declared independent, and then absorbed in Russian domination), and by both treaties the passage was secured to merchant vessels only.
In 1800, Russia having obtained the protectorship of the Ionian Islands (their importance we felt in 1815, not so much