Download - AVAM VE LORDLAR KAMARASINDA TÜRKİYE İLE İLGİLİ MÜZAKERELER 1833-1842_HASİP SAYGILI_2013_206

7/29/2019 AVAM VE LORDLAR KAMARASINDA TRKYE LE LGL MZAKERELER 1833-1842_HASP SAYGILI_2013_206

1/206

Avam ve Lordlar Kamarasnda

Trkiye ile ilgili Mzakereler

(1833-1842)

Kaynak: http://hansard.millbanksystems.com

Haz. Hasip Saygl

2013 - stanbul


2/206

2

indekiler(linklendirilmitir)

RUSSIANS AT CONSTANTNOPLE. HC Deb 22 April 1833 ..................................................................3

RUSSIA AND TURKEY. HC Deb 11 July 1833 ......................................................................................4

RUSSIAN AND TURKSH TREATIES. HC Deb 17 March 1834 ............................................................ 12

RUSSIAN POLICY. HC Deb 19 February 1836 .................................................................................. 35

RUSSIA. HC Deb 14 December 1837 .............................................................................................. 65

RUSSIA. HC Deb 23 February 1838 ................................................................................................ 76

ADDRESSANSWER TO THE SPEECH. HC Deb 05 February 1839 ................................................... 78

TREATY WITH TURKEY. HL Deb 11 February 1839 ........................................................................ 132

CAPTURE OF ADEN. HL Deb 11 March 1839................................................................................. 133

THE SULTAN AND MEHEMET ALI. HL Deb 12 March 1839 ........................................................... 134

RUSSIA AND TURKEY. HC Deb 27 March 1839 ............................................................................. 136

TURKEY AND EGYPT. HL Deb 25 April 1839 .................................................................................. 138

TURKEY AND EGYPT. HC Deb 28 May 1839 .................................................................................. 139

THE EAST. HC Deb 09 July 1839 ................................................................................................... 140

TURKEY AND EGYPT. HC Deb 22 August 1839 .............................................................................. 141

COMMERCE WITH TURKEY. HC Deb 25 February 1840 ................................................................ 142

TURKEY AND EGYPT. HC Deb 27 March 1840 ............................................................................... 144

TURKEY AND EGYPT. HC Deb 04 May 1840 .................................................................................. 166

TURKEY AND EGYPT. HC Deb 01 June 1840 .................................................................................. 167

FOREIGN COMMERCAL POLICY. HC Deb 22 July 1840 ................................................................. 172

FRANCE AND EGYPT. HC Deb 06 August 1840 .............................................................................. 184

TURKEY, SYRIA, AND EGYPT. HC Deb 19 February 1841 ............................................................... 191

CHRISTIANS IN SYRIA. HC Deb 12 March 1841 ............................................................................. 192TURKEY AND EGYPT. HC Deb 12 March 1841 ............................................................................... 194

SYRIA. HC Deb 06 April 1841 ....................................................................................................... 197

THE SYRIAN WAR. HC Deb 26 August 1841 .................................................................................. 198

SYRIA. HC Deb 20 September 1841.............................................................................................. 199

TURKSHCOMMERCAL TREATY. HC Deb 11 February 1842 ......................................................... 204

SYRIA. HC Deb 11 February 1842 ................................................................................................. 205


3/206

3

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/apr/22/russians-at-Constantinople

RUSSIANS AT CONSTANTNOPLE. HC Deb 22 April 1833

vol 17 cc383-4383

Mr. Thomas Attwood

wished to ask a question relative to our foreign policy. It was well known, that for several

years past Russia had coveted the possession of Constantinople. The public had heard a greatnumber of alarming rumours during the last week which gave them reason to believe that

Constantinople was already in the possession of the Russians. He wished 384 to have the

happiness, therefore, to hear that steps had been taken by the Government to prevent a result

which would be disastrous to the best interests of Europe, and inconsistent with the honour of

England.

Lord Althorp

said, he knew nothing of Constantinople being in the possession of the Russians, and thenegotiations on the subject alluded to were not in such a state that he could say anything on

the subject. Indeed, it would be highly improper in him were he to take any means ofgratifying the hon. Member.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/apr/22/russians-at-constantinople#column_383http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/apr/22/russians-at-constantinople#S3V0017P0_18330422_HOC_6http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/apr/22/russians-at-constantinople#S3V0017P0_18330422_HOC_6http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/apr/22/russians-at-constantinople#S3V0017P0_18330422_HOC_6http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/apr/22/russians-at-constantinople#column_384http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/apr/22/russians-at-constantinople#column_384http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/apr/22/russians-at-constantinople#S3V0017P0_18330422_HOC_7http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/apr/22/russians-at-constantinople#S3V0017P0_18330422_HOC_7http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/apr/22/russians-at-constantinople#S3V0017P0_18330422_HOC_7http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/apr/22/russians-at-constantinople#S3V0017P0_18330422_HOC_7http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/apr/22/russians-at-constantinople#S3V0017P0_18330422_HOC_7http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/apr/22/russians-at-constantinople#column_384http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/apr/22/russians-at-constantinople#S3V0017P0_18330422_HOC_6http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/apr/22/russians-at-constantinople#S3V0017P0_18330422_HOC_6http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/apr/22/russians-at-constantinople#column_383


4/206

4

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-Turkey

RUSSIA AND TURKEY. HC Deb 11 July 1833vol 19 cc570-83570

Mr. Henry L. Bulwer,

on being called on by the Speaker, said, that before he proceeded with the Motion of which he

had given notice, he wished to ask whether any Government existed?*

Lord Althorp

who had just entered the House and taken his seat, replied, "Here we are."

Mr. Henry L. Bulwer

said, it did not follow because they were there, that they constituted a Government; but, as hepresumed, from the noble Lord's answer, that he must consider them as yet in power, he

would proceed with the Motion which he rose to bring forward. He begged in the firstinstance, to assure the noble Lord, that he made his Motion without any hostility to the

Government, since he had never heard one word from the noble Lord in the House which didnot do honour to his situation, and because from every opportunity he had had of knowing

what the noble Lord had done out of the House, he believed, the conduct of the noble Lord to

have been all that could be desired. But whatever confidence he had in Government, he

thought that when such great events took place as those which threatened a complete change

of the political relations of Europe, it could not, be supposed that this country viewed them

with indifference, nor that the House was not anxious to be acquainted with the policy of the *In consequence of the Ministers having been defeated in the House of Lords on the Local

Courts' Bill, various rumours had prevailed during the week of changes in the Administration.Hence Mr. Bulwer's question.571 Government directing its affairs. What he had to say, he

should say in a very few words. In the first place, he did not consider that it was the intentionof Russia to take present possession ofTurkey. The destinies of nations were not changed by

a coup de main. He looked upon its conduct merely as a proof and a developement of its

plans, and not as their completion. By the Treaty of Adrianople, Russia with the same

consummate policy which had ever directed her affairs, showed a generous abnegation of

territorial acquisition in Turkey, in order that she might more widely and safely extend her

moral power over that country. She made her agents, however, independent of the Turkish

authorities, and even assumed the right of naming for a time the Turkish authorities

themselves. The Sublime Porte was degraded in the eyes of its subjects, and the prestigewhich formerly hung around it was gone. This was all that Russia wanted. A government that

depreciates itself cannot stand by itself, and its territories must soon become the province ofanother. The disgrace of the Porte naturally occasioned a variety of insurrections among its

subjects; Mehemet Ali, of those subjects, was at first the most powerful, and afterwards the

most formidable, and on the part of France was his revolt stimulated, as it was said by some

of no contemptible nature. His army, at first forced to retreat, vanquished the brave but

imprudent Hussein Pacha. The fate of the Sultan and of his capital depended on a battle which

his general was likely to lose; and Russia offered herself at once as his protector and

supporter, and was accepted. Admiral Roussin arrived at Constantinople, and engaged for theretreat of the Pacha on certain terms, which included the refusal of Russian assistance. To this
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#column_570http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#S3V0019P0_18330711_HOC_23http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#S3V0019P0_18330711_HOC_23http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#S3V0019P0_18330711_HOC_23http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#S3V0019P0_18330711_HOC_24http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#S3V0019P0_18330711_HOC_24http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#S3V0019P0_18330711_HOC_24http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#S3V0019P0_18330711_HOC_25http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#S3V0019P0_18330711_HOC_25http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#S3V0019P0_18330711_HOC_25http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/bills/local-courts-bill-1http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/bills/local-courts-bill-1http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/bills/local-courts-bill-1http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#column_571http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#column_571http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#column_571http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#column_571http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/bills/local-courts-bill-1http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/bills/local-courts-bill-1http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/bills/local-courts-bill-1http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#S3V0019P0_18330711_HOC_25http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#S3V0019P0_18330711_HOC_25http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#S3V0019P0_18330711_HOC_24http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#S3V0019P0_18330711_HOC_24http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#S3V0019P0_18330711_HOC_23http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#S3V0019P0_18330711_HOC_23http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#column_570


5/206

5

Russia refused her consent" you have asked for me, and you shall have me," she says; her

troops marched accordingly on Constantinople. It was impossible not to admire the talent of a

cabinet which actually compelled the Power it was determined to destroy, to receive it to its

bosom as its best and its dearest friend. But he begged the House to observe, that in all these

transactions of France on one side, and Russia on the other, we appeared as cyphers, and as

far as the public knew anything, the whole fate of the East was about to be changed withoutour572knowing more of the matter than if we had been some petty German principality. But

Russia excused herself, he understood, in this manner, and here it was that the House required

a satisfactory explanation from the noble Lord. It was said, that some time previous to the

Russian expedition, or consent of assistance, she informed us, and the Porte specially

informed us, that events were taking place in Asia which would oblige the Porte to have

recourse to foreign interference, and that we were asked by both parties to put a stop to

Mehemet's progress, which a note from usa mere note from uswould have been able to

do. That this note we delayed writing, and that thus Russia was forced to take the part she

took. He mentioned this, in order that the noble Lord might explain the fact, or that the papers

might be produced which would afford the explanation. The affair ended by Mehemet

accepting the conditions the public were acquainted with, and the Russians, he presumed,were to withdraw from Constantinople, as the noble Lord said, or he would not otherwise

surely have struck so strong upon the string of non-interference. Russia was to retire from

Turkey; but what of that? If Russia retreated home, the mischief was done. Her moral

ascendancy over Turkey was increasedit was for the increase of this moral ascendancy that

she marched into Turkey. She meant, and wanted at this moment nothing more. Since 1776,

Russia had extended herself over two-thirds of the coast of the Black Sea. Of the eleven

millions of inhabitants in Turkey, three millions of Greeks and Armenians were attached to

her yoke. By her commercial relations with different parts of the Continent, she had

endeavoured to connect their interests with her, and by her power and magnificence, whichwith an oriental people had great sway, she had also endeavoured to obtain a strong hold over

their imagination. Working with such materials and such means, she expected that if theTurkish empire dissolved, it would naturally fall into her possession, and with the

consummate policy for which she was remarkable, she understood the art of waiting upon

events, the termination of which she contented herself with calmly and deliberately preparing.

Ultimately looking to the Dardanelles, her next step would probably be to get possession of

Trebizond, which573would give a dpt for her military stores, and open an easy access to

Persia or Turkey for her armies. This being the state of things, it seemed pretty clear, that if

they were allowed to continue, with the immense power and concentrated designs of Russia,

the weak and divided government of Turkey, that important part of the world, unless other

influences interfered to prevent it, would necessarily fall under her sway. With these

important changes before the House, to which he presumed the Government had cast theconsiderate eye of statesmen, the country, he thought, in a matter so important to its interests,

might fairly claim to know the general outline of the policy of Ministers. This became a still

more reasonable expectation, since the views of another party, rival candidates for power,

were well known. A noble Lord, with whose general views he disagreed, but of whose

character he entertained a high opinion, and whose kindness he had personally to

acknowledge, had stated on a former occasion, that he did consider the diminution of Turkey

for the aggrandisement of Russia an object of serious alarm to this country, which it would be

his duty to prevent; some persons, however, were of a contrary opinion, and seemed rather to

favour the idea of Russian dominion in the East as favourable to the general civilization, and

to the happiness of the people of that part of the world. He acknowledged that, of all ideas,

this seemed to him the most singular of any that ever entered the brain of any man acquaintedwith history. But as his opinions were briefly explained in an able and eloquent passage of a
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#column_572http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#column_572http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#column_572http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#column_573http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#column_573http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#column_573http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#column_573http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#column_572


6/206

6

pamphlet that had been written on the subject, he would read that passage to the House:"

Yet is this to be effected by Russia, by a nation which itself has just emerged from obscurity,

scarcely possessing a complete legislature, and not yet free from the fetters of Gothic

vassalage. Would Turkey (if conquered) adopt the manners and embrace the religion of the

conquerors? Without this can such a change be effected?will not a humane and beneficent

modification of its own religion be more likely to improve its advantages? tinder thegovernment of foreigners, to whom no allegiance is due but that of conquest, are we to expect

the same coincidence in views, the same assistance in projects, as when national 574

prejudice, religion, and dutyin fine, all the principles on which Turkish government is

founded, unite? Observe, the precepts of the Koran are the rules of legislation as well as of

moral conduct. Would Russia be able to dissolve the fabric of a religion so pleasing and

gratifying to the passions of eastern nations, after it has stood eleven centuries? If they could

not do this, what could they do?" The writer was actually speaking of the proposed plan of

Turkish civilization. The dominion of Russia had not, he believed, in general been favourable

to the civilization or happiness of the conquered; but even if Turkey could be civilized and

rendered more happy under the dominion of Russia, was that the case with the other nations to

which the possession of Constantinople would only open the way? If a nation had oneparticular point to gain, a natural frontier, a peculiar river or mountain, for which it would be

always ready to wage war, it might be a question whether it would not be sound policy to

yield that point. But was that the case with Russia? Let the House look to any part of the

world in which Russia had not manifested the same grasping desire to add to her

possessionslet them look at the map, and see what she had taken in the north, the south, the

east, and the west. What power had not suffered from her fatal neighbourhood? Half a century

ago Russia was not half European, now Europe was half Russian. But the dominion of Russia

had not, he believed, in general, been favourable to the civilization or happiness of the

conquered. Even the Crimea from 1770 to 1790 decreased in population from 250,000 to60,000a decrease of four-fifths in twenty years. He could conceive nothing more miserable

than the lot of the Turks under the dominion of Russia. Shocked in every feeling, habit, andprejudice, and deeply imbued with the sentiment of predestination, revolts would be certain;

the Russian punishments for revolts are known; and he thought humanity must pause before it

would make even of Turkey another Poland. But it was not only by territorial increase that

Russia had become formidable since the Treaty of Teschen, where she was first allowed to

appear as a European power (a fault, said a diplomalist of the time, that it cost forty battles to

efface). Since that period she had penetrated herself so deeply into the heart 575 of all

European affairs, that there was nothing which could take place in the smallest and most

distant nook of Europe in which she did not take an active and decisive part. Bold, where

anything was to be gained by forcecrafty, where it was to be gained by intrigueshe took

as much pains with her diplomacy as with her military force. Wherever an able man was to beobtained, she had rewards, and service, and distinctions at his disposal; wherever a secret was

to be purchased, she had the money ready; whenever war was probable, her armies arrived at

their destination before we were suspicious of their march. There was hardly a court in which

she had not family alliances and secret agents. In Holland, in Portugal, in Spain, in all the

states of Germany, and now in Turkey, her influence was predominant; uniform in her plans,

she had never moved without an object, and, concentrated in her power, she never struck but

with the whole force of her arm. Such was the Russia, which was slowly but steadily

advancing towards Constantinople, and determined at no distant day to take possession of the

Dardanelles, when all her energy, enterprise, and ambition would be directed to the extension

of her maritime power. Such was the Russia, meditating upon which the greatest political and

military genius of his age exclaimed, "Que l'Europe ait garde, ou en 50 ans, elle sera touteCossacque." It was not such a Power as this that we could deceive by professions of
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#column_574http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#column_574http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#column_575http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#column_575http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#column_575http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#column_574


7/206

7

friendship, or turn aside from her course by courteous remonstrances. If we wished to stop

herif we deemed it our policy to stop her while it was yet time, we must do so by

employing the same language and maintaining the same bearing to her that she maintained to

us. He would not insult or offend her, and he owned that the vote of the other night was, under

all circumstances, a difficult one to decide upon; but, at the same time, he thought we should

not shrink, or seem to shrink, from expressing an opinion fairly and openly upon her policy,and a determination to resist her further aggrandisement and aggressions. He thought we

should not shrink from doing this, nor from averring that we did this; since, in spite of what

might be said to the contrary, the great power of England on the Continent was a moral

power, and she could influence the conduct of its sovereigns by influencing 576the opinions

of their subjects. For this reason, also, he asked for the papers for which he should conclude

by moving; and it seemed to him more especially his duty at the present time; because, while

he felt the more dread at the progress of Russiabecause, with her progress, her principles

would advance alsohe found that there were princes who, for the sake of those principles

which they imagined favourable to their personal interests, winked at an ambition which must

be finally fatal to the independence of their subjects. No longer ago than last Christmas, it was

pretty generally reported that Count Appony, the Austrian Ambassador at Paris, statedinspeaking on the affairs of the Eastthat his Court had a greater apprehension of French

principles than Russian ambition. Here, then, was a new hinge for politics. It was no longer

the power of a state, but the opinions of a state, which were dreaded; and those opinions were

the opinions of an enlightened country, with whom, on account of corresponding views and

ideas, we had entered into alliance. Moreover, he found, that the enlightened opinions to

which Russia was inimical, had been combated, and combated successfully over different

parts of Europe. They were put down in Italy, in defiance of the most able and energetic

remonstrances of Mr. Seymour. They were put down in Germany, in defiance of the most

solemn promises and the most binding treaties. They were put down in Poland undercircumstances which exalted every humane feeling, appealed to every political interest, and

aroused every sense of national honour. They were yet combated secretly in Belgium, openlyin Holland, and even the expedition against Mehemet Ali, who, though a powerful and

enlightened prince, did not chance to be a legitimate sovereign, seemed founded upon the

same policy; and we might learn at Vienna and at St. Petersburg, that armies were equally

ready to start for any part of the world, for Rome or for Constantinople, as it might be

necessary, to rivet the loosening chains of Papal or Mahometan despotism. He could not

think, with these circumstances passing before his eyes, that it was the part of a great Minister

and a great statesman to turn the attention of the people from events which might endanger

their dearest rights, their national power and existence, 577by a commonplace appeal to their

pockets. It was the duty of a Government to curb, but not to put down the spirit of a nation

to avoid war as long as it was possible, but to keep alive the hearts of the people for anyemergency. Gentlemen talked of war as if it were a thing which always depended upon

ourselves, and which we had to choose as we might happen to like it, or the reverse; it was a

thing only to be forced upon us; but when we saw it inevitably coming, then we need not wait

for the rest, but take the best opportunity of meeting it; and, though he agreed in thinking that

war was a great calamity to any country, this he would say, that if there were any country

which, under the present condition of the world, could hope to wage a prosperous and

successful war, it was that country which was at once mistress of the seas and possessed of

the sympathies of the civilized portion of man-kind. He used this language, not because he

thought there was any necessity for us now to go to war, or that there need be such necessity.

He knew, if such a necessity were to arise, the people would be ready to meet, it; and he did

not wish foreigners, who did not understand us, to take that grumbling at our poverty, and ourdebt, which had always existed since the days of Marlborough to be perfectly and literally
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#column_576http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#column_576http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#column_577http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#column_577http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#column_577http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#column_576


8/206

8

true. The brave and gallant spirited people of England would shrink from no emergency in

which their liberties and the liberties of Europe might require them to take a part. The

burthens of the country had increased, but with the burthens of the country had also increased

its resources; and though Russia had advanced from the Don to the Danube, from the Dneiper,

to the Dneister, to the Pruth; though she had quartered herself in Moldavia and Wallachia,

supplanted us in Holland, defied us in Germany and Poland, and entered, regardless of ourdiplomacy, the very gates of Constantinople, yet, notwithstanding, if Great Britain saw the

necessity, or had the will, she never in a greater degree than at present, possessed the power to

bid defiance to the armies and the principles of Russia. He hoped, therefore, we did not stand

in disgraceful awe of a power which it would be equally as ridiculous to despise. He hoped

that the noble Lord would explain frankly his views and feelings, such as would satisfy, both

as to the course he might follow, and the policy he had pursued.578For his own part, he had

only to hope, that, however warmly he might have alluded to our political relations, he had

indulged in no unbecoming personal remarks, and, thanking the House for its attention, he

concluded by moving for "an humble Address to his Majesty for Papers respecting the

Measures pursued by Russia, in her late interference with the state of Turkey."

ViscountPalmerston

said, it was hardly necessary for him to state that he should consider it his duty to oppose the

Motion, because the transactions to which the papers called for referred, were incomplete, and

the character of the whole transaction would depend upon its termination. The papers asked

for, related to the late interference of Russia with Turkey, and the part this country took with

reference to that proceeding; and, as the results were not yet known, the House would at once

perceive that the Motion of the hon. Member must be premature. The hon. Member had takenadvantage of the Motion before the House, to express his opinion as to the general policy of

his Majesty's Government with regard to Russia, and from the tendency of the hon.Gentleman's speech, he seemed to attach greater importance to the opportunity afforded him

of declaring his sentiments on this subject, than to the production of the papers he moved for.There was always some inconvenience attending the entering into a detailed discussion on the

conduct of the Government on foreign affairs, when the transactions to which it had reference

were not, complete. The Ministers were, no doubt, responsible for their acts, but it was too

much to expect that, while transactions were pending, Ministers should undertake to explain

not only their own conduct, but the motives which influenced the conduct of others. It was

probable that at the very time at which they were speaking the Russian troops had evacuated

Turkey. The pledge to do so had been repeatedly and solemnly given, not only to this country,

but to all the other Powers of Europe, and, it was certainly, premature to declare that Russia

did not mean to keep her faith? The hon. Gentleman had urged it as an accusation against.Ministers that they had not interfered to defend the Sultan against Mehemet Ali, and preventthe advance of his army. He was not prepared to deny, that the 579latter part of last year an

application was made on the part of the Sultan to this country for assistance, but the

Government was at that time not prepared to afford it; Ministers, in short, did not think it fit to

afford assistance to the Porte at that particular juncture. No doubt if England had thought lit to

interfere, the progress of the invading army would have been stopped, and the Russian troops

would not have been called in; but although it was easy to say, after events had happened, that

they were to be expected, yet certainly no one could anticipate the rapidity with which they

had succeeded each other in the East. From this reply, and the subsequent rapid progress of

the Egyptian armsa progress not to be anticipated from any preceding eventsthe Sultan

felt himself called upon to apply for assistance to Russia, and from Russia he obtained it. TheRussian government, in granting this aid to the Sultan, had pledged its honour, and in that
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#column_578http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#column_578http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#column_578http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#S3V0019P0_18330711_HOC_26http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#S3V0019P0_18330711_HOC_26http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#S3V0019P0_18330711_HOC_26http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#column_579http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#column_579http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#column_579http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#S3V0019P0_18330711_HOC_26http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#S3V0019P0_18330711_HOC_26http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#column_578


9/206

9

pledge be reposed the most implicit confidence, to limit its assistance to the defence alone of

the Sultan, and had promised to withdraw whatever force might be placed at the disposal of

that sovereign, for the purpose of securing his defence, as soon as peace was established

between the Porte and Egypt. The hon. Gentleman would find in these observations an answer

to his question, as to the policy of his Majesty's Government with regard to Russia and

Turkey. The hon. Gentleman also asked would his Majesty's Government allow the conquestof Turkey by Russia. He had no hesitation in saying, that it was of the utmost importance for

the interest of England, and for the maintenance of the peace of Europe, that the Ottoman

empire should remain entire, and be an independent State. Whether the inhabitants of this

large empire were Mohammedans or Christiansthough he wished they were Christians

was not the question, for the subject must be dealt with in reference to political, and not to

religious interests; but if Russian conquest should lead to the Christianizing and civilizing the

inhabitants of that country, such advantagesand no one could estimate them higher than he

didwould be counterbalanced by the consequences which would result to Europe from the

dismemberment of the Turkish empire. Undoubtedly, then, his Majesty's Ministers would feel

it to be their duty to resist any attempt on the part of Russia to partition 580 the Turkish

empire; and they would equally have felt themselves at liberty to interfere, and prevent thePacha of Egypt from dismembering any portion of the dominions of the Sultan. The integrity

and independence of the Ottoman empire were necessary to the maintenance of the

tranquillity, the liberty, and the balance of power in the rest of Europe. At the same time, he

had great doubts that any intention to partition that empire at all entered into the policy of the

Russian government. Besides, he very much doubted also whether the Russian nation

properly so calledwould be prepared to see that transference of power, of residence, and

authority to the southern provinces, which would be the necessary consequence of the

conquest by Russia of Constantinople. Such an event, too, would lead to a general war in

Europe, for other Powers were as much, if not more, interested than ourselves in preventingsuch aggrandizement of the power of Russia. He therefore, thought, that sound policy, good

faith, and every consideration of its own interest would induce the Russian government toabandon such a course, if it ever had the inclination to pursue it. He could assure the hon.

Gentleman, that the British Government felt that the maintenance of the peace of Europe was

an object of the greatest importance; and, as far as the Government of this country was

concerned, without minding the taunts thrown out as to their pacific policy, they would do

their utmost to preserve the peace of Europe. His Majesty's Government had been taunted

with being afraid to go to war, and had been accused of truckling to other Powers in

consequence of this fear. These accusations he (Viscount Palmerston) distinctly denied. If the

present relations established between this country and France were pointed at in these sneers,

he would only say, that he should look back with feelings of pride and satisfaction at the part

he had acted in bringing about that good understanding. No apprehension could be excited inany reasonable mind on this score, for the circumstances of this connexion, both in France and

in this country were greatly altered during the period that the present. Ministry had conducted

the political affairs of Great Britain. At the same time he repudiated the idea that England was

afraid of Russia. There certainly existed many reasons on both581sides for the wish to avoid

hostilities. Russia herself must wish for peace; she was a very large country, and immense

commercial relations were established between her and this country. On what principle could

she wish for war, or on what principle could those, who in this country were so loudly calling

on the British Government to draw the sword, justify the appeal to arms at the present

moment? Did they contemplate the calamities, the fatal and disastrous consequences,

attendant upon a state of general warfareconsequences in which the conquerors, no less

than the conquered, shared? The taunt of being afraid of war in any sense but this was puerile;for no country on the face of the globe was likely to suffer less than England from war. From
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#column_580http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#column_580http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#column_581http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#column_581http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#column_581http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#column_581http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#column_580


10/206

10

all the unexampled sacrifices this country made during the last war with France, her internal

resources and energies were such, she had recovered and repaired her means far sooner than

any of the other nations which had been engaged in those hostilities. He had thus stated, to

satisfy either the curiosity, or the anxiety, of the hon. Member, what had been the conduct of

his Majesty's Government, and upon what principles they had proceeded. They had pursued

the course which their duty to their country required; and if they had quietly beheld thetemporary occupation of the Turkish capital by the forces of Russia, it was because they had

full confidence in the honour and good faith of Russia, and believed that those troops would

be withdrawn in a very short time, he believed he might almost say, before a few days had

elapsed. On the ground of public convenience, therefore, and of the confidence he had in the

fulfilment of her engagements by Russia, he thought the present Motion ought not to be

agreed to.

Mr. Cullar Fergusson

declared, that he reposed no confidence in the pledges of Russia, and believed she would

continue to violate them on every occasion, as she had already violated them, when it was herinterest to do so. Had she not pledged herself to maintain the Constitution of Poland, pledged

herself by Treaties, and had she not broken through them all? He would not trust her; for he

was of opinion, that if she now retired from Turkey, it would only be for the purpose of

rendering her return more easy, and her prey more sure. Such was her honesty 582 in his

estimation. He agreed with the noble Lord in his commendation of the present friendly

relations between this country and France, and thought the interests of every free nation in

Europe dependent on the continuance of that good understanding, for he was convinced a

conspiracy was in operation against the free institutions of Europe, and that Russia, who wasat the head of this conspiracy, would never rest satisfied until she had subjugated every

country within her reach. When Poland was crushed, the thraldom of the German States, andafterwards of this country, was contemplated by that overbearing Power. The noble Viscount

had informed the House, that the Government had remonstrated with Russia on the subject ofher treatment of the Poles. But why did he, then, prevent the House of Commons from

associating itself in that remonstrance? The discussion which took place on the subject the

other night, would, however, go forth to Europe, and show what sentiments were entertained

by the British Legislature of the conduct, of Russia towards Poland. With reference to the

Motion he acquiesced in the statement of the noble Lord, that it would be improper to produce

the papers till the negotiations were entirely at an end.

Colonel Evans

thought it, right on the part of his Majesty's Ministers to resist the taunts which had been

thrown out against certain parts of their public conduct, but at the same time he could not helpexpressing his surprise at the confidence which the noble Viscount (Viscount Palmerston)

seemed to place in the good faith of Russia. If they were to judge by its former acts, he would

say, that there existed no grounds for such confidence, and that it was utterly unfounded; nay

more, was altogether disproved by her conduct, not only towards Poland, but towards Turkey.

With regard to Poland, she had been guilty of twenty years of infidelity and breach of faith;

and with respect to Turkey, her conduct had been marked by want of faith and honesty. He

was not anxious to see this country plunged into war, but he felt that if we, with France, had

interfered immediately after the battle of the Pruth, we should have been right: but we allowed

this opportunity to escape, and three months after the Russians had entered the Turkishterritory as protectors, they declared that they had claims of their own, independent of the 583
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#S3V0019P0_18330711_HOC_27http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#S3V0019P0_18330711_HOC_27http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#S3V0019P0_18330711_HOC_27http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#column_582http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#column_582http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#column_583http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#column_583http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#column_583http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#column_582http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#S3V0019P0_18330711_HOC_27http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#S3V0019P0_18330711_HOC_27


11/206

11

other Powers, which they were determined should be satisfied. The same conduct pursued by

us in India, and by the Spaniards in South America, for increasing their territories was now

about to be resorted to by Russia with respect to the States by which her territories were

surrounded. The gallant Officer referred to the Treaty which existed between this country,

France, and Russia, with respect to Turkey, and said that Treaty had been violated by the

Russians. When the question of the conduct of Russia had been broached on a formeroccasion, the answer of Ministers was then, as now, that their noninterference was grounded

on the fear of a war. But when the Russians had reached Adrianople, then the fear of war

appeared to have ceased, and the English and French Governments gent fleets up the

Dardanelles to check the progress of the Russians. There was no Power in Europe greater than

England, and no opponent whom we had less reason to fear, great as was its power, than

Russia; and if any such fear ever did exist, it must be done away with by the Reform which

had taken place both in France and in this country, and the consequent amicable alliance

between the two countries. He hoped his Majesty's Ministers would not place reliance on the

faith of Russia, and, above all, that they would prevent the continued occupation of the

Turkish capital by that overgrown Power. He hoped that the very fact of this occupation

would be a lesson both to England and France, and induce them to take the necessarymeasures to preserve Turkey as an independent State. He wished to state, that he agreed with

the general policy of his Majesty's Ministers, notwithstanding their conduct towards Poland,

and that he wished to see a little more vigour thrown into their measures, and he felt sure that,

in the event of our being obliged to go to war, they would not be found unprepared for the

occasion.

Mr. Henry Lytton Bulwer,

in reply, said, that after what had fallen from the noble Viscount, he would not press his

Motion. He was satisfied with the expression of opinion which had taken place, and would,with the leave of the House, withdraw the Motion.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#S3V0019P0_18330711_HOC_29http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#S3V0019P0_18330711_HOC_29http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#S3V0019P0_18330711_HOC_29http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#S3V0019P0_18330711_HOC_29http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/11/russia-and-turkey#S3V0019P0_18330711_HOC_29


12/206

12

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-Turkish-treaties

RUSSIAN AND TURKSH TREATIES. HC Deb 17 March 1834

vol 22 cc306-49306

Mr. Sheil

, in rising to bring this matter before the attention of the House, observed, that having agreed

on a former occasion to postpone his Motion in consequence of the pressure of other business,he considered himself so much the more entitled to attention at present, particularly as no

other business pressed before the Easter recess. If it should be asked why he had introduced a

subject so important to the attention of the House, his answer would be that, before he

exercised the right vested in every Member of that House, he had taken care to make himself

acquainted with it. He should at once proceed, without any preliminary observation, to the

statement of the facts, incidents, and documents, on which he should ground his Motion. In

the autumn of 1831, Ibrahim Pacha marched into Syria; on the 3rd of December in that year,Acre was besieged; it fell in May 1832. Ibrahim Pacha advanced to Damascus, which was

taken on the 14th of June. On the 7th of July, the fate of Syria was decided by the battle at

Homs. It was easy to foresee these successes, and to anticipate the victory of Egyptiandiscipline over Turkish disorganization. Was it not most strange that at this period we had no

Ambassador at Constantinople? There was no Ambassador from the English or French

Governments. General Guilleminot had been French Ambassador during the Polish war; but,

in consequence of his interference in urging the Porte to take advantage of that crisis, he was

removed by Sebastiani, at the instance of Count Pozzo di Borgo. Turkey applied to England in

this emergency for aid. This most important fact had been admitted by the noble Lord in that

House. That assistance was refused. Even Russia concurred in recommending, that succour

should be afforded. Russia calculated, of course, on the refusal. Naval aid was all that wasasked. It was obvious that it would have been sufficient to deter Ibrahim from advancing. He

marched on, and forced308the passes of the Taurus. On the 21st of December, the battle ofKoniah was fought, and the last Turkish army was annihilated. The moment for Russian

interposition and the triumph of its crafty policy was now arrived. The emperor Nicholas,

after England had refused her assistance, had sent General Mauravieff to Constantinople, with

a letter, written in the language of fraternal endearment, to the Sultan, offering fleets and

troops. This proposition was not at first acceded to, but on the 2nd of February, 1833, he

applied for this sinister aid. As yet there was no English or French Ambassador in

Constantinople. Lord Ponsonby, who had been appointed in November, did not arrive until

the succeeding May. Admiral Roussin reached Constantinople on the 17th of February; on the

19th, he remonstrated (which England never did) on the occupation of Turkey by Russiantroops. The Turkish government was struck with the force of his representationsbut on thevery next day the Russian fleet arrived in the Bosphorus. Admiral Roussin employed his best

efforts to induce Ibrahim to sign a treaty, but he was counteracted by Russia, of which therecould be little question. The French Ambassador was alone. Had he been sustained by Lord

Ponsonby and an English fleet, much might have been effected; but Russian diplomacy,

sustained by 20,000 troops, prevailed. The Russian army disembarked on the Asiatic side of

the Bosphorus, Admiral Roussin was foiled, and to Russian interposition the Sultan declared

that he owed the salvation of his empire. In May, Lord Ponsonby reached Constantinople.

What he could have done, had he arrived at an earlier period, was obvious; what he actually

did was equally evident. Count Orloff arrived as well as Lord Ponsonby, and the result was a

consummation of the plot which had been darkly and deeply laid. From the Divan let them

turn for a moment to St. Stephen's Chapel. On the 11th of July, the hon. member for Coventry
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_306http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_306http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#S3V0022P0_18340317_HOC_27http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#S3V0022P0_18340317_HOC_27http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#S3V0022P0_18340317_HOC_27http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_308http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_308http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_308http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_308http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#S3V0022P0_18340317_HOC_27http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#S3V0022P0_18340317_HOC_27http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_306


13/206

13

had moved "for copies of papers respecting the measures pursued by Russia, in her late

interference with the state of Turkey." On that occasion the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston)

made some most important statements. The noble Lord resisted the Motion, because the

transactions to which the papers related were incomplete, and their character must depend on

their termination. He admitted, 309 that aid had been asked of England by the Porte, and

refused, and that if England had thought proper to interfere, the progress of the invading armywould have been stopped, and the Russian troops would not have been called in. The aid

granted by Russia was merely to repress Mehemet Ali. The integrity of the Ottoman empire

should be maintained. The noble Lord said, "The taunt, of the Government being afraid of war

is puerile, and I defy any man to show, that we have made any sacrifice of the honour or

interests of the country for the sake of maintaining peace." He (Mr. Sheil) would not interrupt

the order of the statement here by any commentary on this intrepid and chivalrous declaration,

but would content himself with whispering "Poland" in the car of the noble Lord. The noble

Lord concluded by saving, "that he had no doubt that Russia would honourably withdraw her

troops, as soon as peace should be established, and fulfil the pledges which she had made in

the face of Europe." The 11th of July was the day on which this speech was delivered. How

little did the noble Lord conjecture, that only three days before, on the 8th of July, a Treatyhad been clandestinely signed at Constantinople between the Sultan and Count Orloff, who,

while he appeared to be engaged in the reviews, shows, and illuminations of the seraglio, was

secretly and silently conducting the Sultan to the ruin which had been prepared for him. Of

this treaty our Government knew and heard nothing until it was announced in the Morning

Herald of the 21st of August. On the 21st of August a letter from the private correspondent of

that Journal appeared, in which it was stated that, "while Count Orloff was apparently

complying with the wishes of France and England, he was preparing a stroke which only

became known the day after his departure, which has since covered the Ambassadors of those

countries with confusion, and has placed Turkey in the bug of the bear. He prevailed on theSultan to sign a treaty, offensive and defensive, by which Turkey is bound not to make any

treaty or call for assistance from any other nation for ten years. One of the articles confirmsall prior treaties, in particular that of Adrianople; another binds Russia to furnish every

assistance necessary to protect her from internal and external enemies; and the third, interdicts

her from resorting 310to any other European power for ten years." The writer adds, that the

other articles of the treaty were unknown; that the treaty was clandestinely concluded; that

Lord Ponsonby and Admiral Roussin remonstrated, and were told that assistance had been

asked in vain from England and France against Egypt, and that they had left the Porte no

alternative; and that the Ambassadors had despatched couriers to their Courts for instructions.

The writer said nothing with regard to the Dardanelles. This letter was, as he had said,

published August 21, 1833, in London. On the 24th of that month, the gallant member for

Westminster introduced the subject to the notice of the House. He asked whether the Russiantroops had entered Turkey with the consent of France and England. He adverted to the

fortifications of the Dardanelles, under the superintendence of Russian engineers, and added

that it was rumoured that a treaty, offensive and defensive, had been entered into between the

Sultan and Count Orloff, without the intervention or knowledge of the other Ambassadors.

The hon. member for Oxford (Sir Robert Inglis) referred to the letter in the Morning Herald,

and trusted, that the noble Lord would not allow the House to receive its information from the

newspapers, but would give it in the usual manner. The hon. Member trusted, that before the

prorogation of the House, or on the earliest occasion, the noble Lord would lay before the

House, not merely the treaty, but the communications connected with it. He hoped the noble

Lord would be able to contradict rumours of a treaty so injurious to the honour and interests

of England. The noble Lord replied that a treaty had been signed; that it had not yet beenofficially communicated; that he knew nothing, except on vague rumour, at that time, of what
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_309http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_309http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_310http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_310http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_310http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_309


14/206

14

the treaty contained. He said, that England had not objected to the entry of the Russian troops

into Turkey, and that the Porte had, in the autumn of 1832, applied to England for assistance,

but that the application was refused. On the 29th August, five days after, his Majesty's Speech

on the prorogation of Parliament was delivered, and contained the following passage:"The

hostilities which had disturbed the peace of Turkey have been terminated; mid you may be

assured that every attention will be carefully directed to any events which may 311affect thepresent state, or the future independence of that empire." From the King's Speech he should

pass to a very momentous communication made by France to Russia, in the following

October. The interests or France and England were bound up together in the whole question,

but more especially with respect to the passage of the Dardanelles, as by the Treaty of Paris in

1802, the rights of France and of England were placed upon precisely the same footing. In

October last Monsieur Le Grenee addressed the following note to Count Nesselrode:"The

undersigned Charg 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 July last, between his

Majesty the Emperor of Russia and the Grand Signior. In the opinion of the King's

Government, this Treaty assigns to the mutual relations existing between the Ottoman empireand Russia, a new character against which the powers of Europe have a right to protest." To

this note, Count Nesselrode replied, in the following 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 which the Turkish Government will henceforth find a guarantee for its stability

and necessary means of defence, calculated to insure 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 Grenee hadno existence.St. Petersburg, Oct. 1833." This note was taken from the Augsburg Gazette, to

which it purported to have been transmitted in a letter from Paris on the 23rd of December.Here let one remark be made, which would not break in on the distinct classification of facts.

If the French Government remonstrated, it was to be presumed that the noble Lord did not

remain silent. Where was his correspondence? Was a note as affronting written in reply, or

was it even couched312in 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, Count Pozzo di

Borgo addressed the King of the French, and on that occasion the accomplished Corsican

pronounced on Louis Philip 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 he got

Constantinople in exchange. He 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 Duke de Broglie made an answer conspicuous in itself, and

which his subsequent conduct rendered still more remarkable. He expressed his unqualified

concurrence in all that had been said, and thanked M. Bignon for having given expression to

the sentiments which he and his colleagues entertained. On the very next day, this very Dukede Broglie went down to the Chamber, and made a speech which was received with
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_311http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_311http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_312http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_312http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_312http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_312http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_311


15/206

15

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 M. La Grenee's note was yet fresh in every memory,

and the Duke of Broglie's approval of Bignon's speech was ringing in every ear, expressed no

sort or 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 313of 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 incident

occurred which remained to be explained. The French and English fleets united proceeded to

the Dardanelles, which Russia had spared no expense to fortify, and having displayed the

tricoloured and "the national flag of England," as it had 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 preference to a more distant, but less commodious harbour, where, however,

Russian influence was not quite so predominant as in that celebrated haven. The glory of this

expedition belonged to the First Lord of the Admiralty, but it was to be conjectured that theachievement was suggested by the genius of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. But in what did

it result? That remained to be told, and for the satisfaction of that curiosity he that night

afforded an opportunity. Parliament met on the 5th. The King's Speech informed them 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 Adrianople, there was, at all events, nothing that infringed upon

our rights, as to the navigation of the Black Sea; and it was to be recollected that, whateverthe First Lord of the Treasury might have said, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs declared that,

"while he desired peace, of war he was not in the least afraid." In that House nointerrogatories were put. On the 24th of February, the following paragraph appeared in the

Globe, which, from its being the supposed organ of Government, deserved great attention, the

more especially as they were left to the newspapers for their intelligence. That article

stated:"Another treaty between Russia and Turkey has been concluded at St. Petersburgh,

which was signed by Achmet Pacha, on the 29th of last month.314Enough 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 on 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 proof's either of the moderation and good sense ofRussia, 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. Petersburgh." Was it not

reasonable that this treaty should be laid before the House? It was to be observed, that, in any

account of it, either in our journals, or in the Allgemeine Zeitung, not one word was said of

the passage of the Dardanelles. The Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia, indeed, were to

be evacuated. That circumstance was a mere delusion, for Wallachia and Moldavia were as

much dependencies on Russia as if they had actually been transferred. Their Hospodars were

virtually nominated by Russia; no Turk could reside in the country; and every appointment

down to that of the humblest officer, was effected through Russian dictation. Silistria was

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 againstthe incursions of the barbarians. As to the remission of money, that concession was made to
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_313http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_313http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_314http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_314http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_314http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_314http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_313


16/206

16

an insolvent debtor; it was not the first time that Russia adopted the same course; the payment

of a tribute was of little moment from a country which was almost incorporated in her

dominions, and would soon meet the fate of so many of the Turkish provinces. But how did

this treaty modify or effect that of the 8th of July? It did not at all relate to it. It concerned the

Treaty of Adrianople, and, as far as they had nothing else on this question, the House was

entitled to receive adequate information from the Government. With respect to theDardanelles,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 might be as well to states,315with brevity, the treaties that existed between

England and Turkey, and those that existed between Russia and Turkey, previous to that

regarding which information was demanded. 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 11th 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 quarreltook 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 because we desired to acquire, as to take them from a

Power that aimed at predominance in the Mediterranean), entered into a treaty securing the

passage of the Dardanelles to the merchant-vessels of those islands. In 1812, the Treaty of

Bucharest was signed, by which Bessarabia was given up to Russia, and all former treaties

respecting the Dardanelles were confirmed. In 1829, the Treaty of Adrianople was signed,and, with respect to the Dardanelles, contained the following passage:"7th Article. The

Sublime Porte declares the passage of the Canal of Constantinople completely free and opento Russian merchant-vessels under merchant flags, from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean,

and from the Mediterranean to the Black Sea; upon the same principle the passage is declared

free and open to all merchant-vessels belonging to Powers at peace with the Porte. The Porte

declares that, under no pretence whatsoever, will it throw any obstacle in the way of the

exercise of this right, and engages, above all, never hereafter to stop or detain vessels, either

with cargo or in ballast, whether Russian or belonging to nations with which the Porte shall

not be in a state of declared war. In the mani-316festo published by the Emperor Nicholas on

the 1st of October, 1829, he said:"The passage of the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus is

henceforth free and open to the commerce of all the nations of the world." Thus the

stipulation was, that all nations at peace (not, be it observed, with Russia, but with the Porte),should enjoy the right of unimpeded passage; but that had been effected by the treaty of the

8th of July? Would it be said that nothing was accomplished by it? If so, why was it signed

without the knowledge of our Ambassador, and in a clandestine and surreptitious way? What

were its provisions? Did the public Journals give a just account of it? Was it true, that it

provided that no vessels belonging to a power at war with Russia should enjoy the right? If so,

the alteration was palpable; and if there were no express declaration to this effect, let there be

an alliance offensive and defensive, and the Porte was bound to consider every enemy of

Russia as its own; the consequence was precisely the same as if the Porte surrendered to

Russia the possession of the Dardanelles, and the last of the Sultans was the first satrap of

Nicholas the Great. There did not appear to be any sound reason for withholding this treaty. It

had been the subject of remonstrance by France, of debate in the French Chamber, ofdiversified commentary in the public journals. Why withhold it? There would be a strange
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_315http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_315http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_315http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_316http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_316http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_316http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_316http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_315


17/206

17

inconsistency in publishing all the enormous answers to protocols respecting Belgium, where

the transaction was as yet incomplete, and in refusing to furnish anything but materials for

surmise on this treaty. Ponderous folios of fruitless negociations on the affairs of Belgium had

been given to the world. Let the Government act upon the principle adopted in that case, and

give the English people the means of forming a judgment, of the policy which his Majesty's

Ministers had adopted in a question where the national honour and interest were so deeplyinvolved. It might be said"Trust in the Minister, be sure that he will not desert his duty, or

acquiesce in any measure incompatible with the honour of England." He (Mr. Sheil) would be

disposed to do so when he took into account that the Secretary for Foreign Affairs was a

political proselyte of Mr. Canning, who considered the interests and the honour of England as

closely blended; and although the noble 317 Lord might have abandoned the opinions on

domestic policy which were entertained by Mr. Canning when he was in the wrong, it was to

be presumed that he adhered with a closer tenacity to those opinions in foreign policy where

Mr. Canning was in the right. But this ground of confidence in the noble Lord was modified,

if not countervailed, by the recollection, that in many recent transactions he had been baffled

by that power which had gathered all the profligate nobility of Europe together, in order to

compound a cabinet of Machievellian mercenaries to maintain the cause of slavery throughthe world. Look at Belgiumlook at the Russian-Dutch loan! The noble Lord, although

guided by the prince of Benevento, had lost his way in the labyrinth which Russia had

prepared for him and Poland. "We shall," he exclaimed, "remonstrate." Well, we did

remonstrate, and despatched Lord Durham to St. Petersburgh (why was not Sir Stratford

Canning there?) and what had been the result? If confidence was to be entertained in the noble

Lord, it must be built on some firmer basis than his maintaining of the Treaty of Vienna.

Instead of calling on the people of England to confide in him, let him build his confidence in

the English people. They were fond of peace, but they were not afraid of war; and when the

honour and dignity of England were to be maintained, he would find in them sympathy, andgenerous auxiliaries. Our fleet could blow the Russian navy from the seas; England was yet a

match for the Northern Autocrat; and there was might enough left in her arm to lay low thecolossus by which the Hellespont was bestrid. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by

moving an Address to his Majesty, "that he would be graciously pleased to direct that copies

of any treaties between Turkey and Russia, since the year 1833, and of any correspondence

between the English, Russian, and Turkish Governments, respecting those treaties, be laid

before the House."

Mr. Henry Lytton Bulwer

seconded the Motion, and trusted that the House would insist upon the production of papers,

which, if they were what they ought to be, would give the House and the nation at large thatimportant and interesting information which was so much wanted. He did not altogether, inconsidering this question, lay so much stress upon the318different treaties which had been

mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman in his eloquent speech, because he looked upon

treaties rather as declarations by the powers making them, of what they considered their

respective interests for the time being, than any binding obligation. What he would lay stress

upon, and what this country at large, as well as other countries laid stress upon, were the

alarming practical demonstrations made by Russia in her inroads into Turkey, and all her

subsequent proceedings. The Motion was not to be considered as a case of mere curiosity, or a

desire to pry into the unimportant details of Ministerial policy; it was a case in which the

House, as the Representatives of a people most particularly anxious on the point, were not

only entitled, but were imperatively called upon, to have a clear explanation of the course ofpolicy acted upon by the Government, and the grounds on which that policy had been
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_317http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_317http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#S3V0022P0_18340317_HOC_28http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#S3V0022P0_18340317_HOC_28http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#S3V0022P0_18340317_HOC_28http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_318http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_318http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_318http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_318http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#S3V0022P0_18340317_HOC_28http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#S3V0022P0_18340317_HOC_28http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_317


18/206

18

adopted: the question was one of the highest importance and interest to all Europe, and ought

to be clearly understood in all its bearings. As far as the people at present understood of the

policy of Government in this particular, that policy was disapproved of, and it was therefore

desirable that Ministers, in their own vindication, should explain themselves. It might

possibly appear that the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) had been overreached by the deep

diplomacy of the Russian court; but at present he was generally blamed for not havingfollowed one of two courseseither that of leaving the Sultan and the Pacha to settle their

disputes by themselves, by abstaining from interference between them, and preventing other

Powers from interfering; or that of interfering in the open, decided, and influential manner

which became the power and dignity of the British empire. Neither of these courses had been

pursued, and the country was therefore very naturally anxious and entitled to have an

explanation of the matter.

ViscountPalmerston

, in replying to the speech of the hon. and learned member for Tipperary, did certainly not

mean to complain of the manner in which he had brought this subject before the House;because nothing could be more good-humoured. The hon. and learned Member said, that as

the House had got through most of the Estimates, and as there was nothing particular to do

before the Easter 319 recess, they might as well amuse themselves by talking a little about

foreign affairs; and, therefore, if the House would listen to him, he would make (as the hon.

and learned Member certainly did) an eloquent and very entertaining speech about Russia and

Turkey, and all the other Powers interested in the transactions that had lately taken place

between those two countries. The hon. and learned Gentleman stated that, in moving for these

papers, he intended to throw no blame upon his Majesty's Ministers; but nevertheless, heshould not feel it consistent with his duty to agree to the Motionnot even to that part of it

which called for the Convention of July, and which was not included in the original notice,but which the hon. and learned Gentleman had since added; because he felt, and he was sure

the House would admit the force of the observation, that if the state of the transactions towhich the Motion related, were such as to make it consistent with the public service that the

treaty for which the hon. and learned Gentleman called should be laid before Parliament, it

would also be proper and consistent that other papers should be produced at the same time, for

the purpose of explaining the transactions which gave rise to the treaty, and the bearing and

effect of that treaty upon all the parties interested. But, in the present state of these

transactions, he felt that it would not be consistent with the interests of the public service to

lay those papers before the House. When a Minister stated that upon his responsibility, he

required from the House that it would place confidence in him, and would not press for the

production of papers which he, in the exercise of his judgment, thought it necessary towithhold. He fully admitted, that to resist the production of papers upon a subject of this kind,was to appeal, in a strong and pointed manner, to the confidence of the House; but, upon the

present occasion, he hoped that the House would refuse to accede to the Motion. The hon. and

learned Gentleman had not laid any sufficiently strong parliamentary grounds upon which to

induce the House to concur in it. A Gentleman who, upon occasions like the present, moved

for the production of papers, ought to show that there was a strong prima facie case of blame

resting upon the Government; and that, for the vindication of the honour and dignity of the

country, it was necessary that the pa-320pers moved for should be produced. He had listened

with great attention to the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech, but he confessed, that he

could scarcely perceive any points upon which the hon. and learned Member even attempted

to throw on the Government any degree of blame for the course it had pursued. The hon. andlearned Member laid most stress upon the refusal of the British Government to give to the
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#S3V0022P0_18340317_HOC_29http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#S3V0022P0_18340317_HOC_29http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#S3V0022P0_18340317_HOC_29http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_319http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_319http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_319http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_320http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_320http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_320http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_320http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#column_319http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#S3V0022P0_18340317_HOC_29http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1834/mar/17/russian-and-turkish-treaties#S3V0022P0_18340317_HOC_29


19/206

19

Sultan that aid which was asked for towards the close of the year 1832. Upon that point it

would be very easy to satisfy the House that no blame was imputable to the Government. The

transactions between Mehemet Ali and the Sultan commenced, as the hon. and learned

Gentleman had stated, in October, 1831; and, as the hon. and learned Gentleman had also very

correctly stated, the decisive action between the troops at Koniah did not take place till

December, 1832. Now, it was not usual for this country to be ready to interfere in contestsbetween sovereigns and their subjects; and, although the Pacha of Egypt was unquestionably a

very powerful subject, approaching, in many respects, to the situation of an independent ruler

of a country, yet he was the subject of the Sultan, and, as such, must be considered by the

Government of this country. The very circumstances which the hon. and teamed Gentleman

alluded to, namely, the early period at which the contest began, and the length of its duration,

proved that, till near its concl

Download - AVAM VE LORDLAR KAMARASINDA TÜRKİYE İLE İLGİLİ MÜZAKERELER 1833-1842_HASİP SAYGILI_2013_206

Top Related