The long-expected military insurrection at Madrid has at length 
been accomplished under the leadership of Generals O’Donnell 
and Dulce.'*? The French Government journals hasten to inform 
us that, according to their dispatches, the Spanish Government has 
already overcome the danger and that the insurrection is 
suppressed.” But the Madrid correspondent of The Morning 
Chronicle, who gives a detailed account of the rising and 
communicates the proclamation of the insurgents, says that they 
have only withdrawn from the capital in order to join the garrison 
of Alcala, and that in case of Madrid remaining passive they would 
have no difficulty in reaching Saragossa.” Should the movement be 
more successful than the last rebellion in that town,'” the 
consequences would be to cause a diversion in the military action 
of France, to afford a subject for dissent between France and 
England, and probably also to affect the pending complication 
between Spain and the United States Government. 

It appears now that the new Russian loan has not been positively 
contracted for by the Messrs. Hope of Amsterdam, as I was led to 
believe from announcements made at-the London and Manches- 
ter Exchanges; and that these bankers have not advanced any 
portion of the money to the Russian treasury. They merely 

undertook to bring it out at the different European Exchanges, 
but at no risk of their own. The success of the loan is reported to 
be very doubtful, and we have news that at Berlin and Frankfort it 
has met with very little favor. The Hamburg Senate has prohibited 
its official quotation, and the English diplomatic agents and 
Consuls, according to The Morning Chronicle, have issued warnings 
to British subjects not to become subscribers to a loan “intended 
for carrying on war against the Queen.” 

The intelligence of the movements of the Russian troops since 
the abandonment of the siege of Silistria is contradictory. The 
Moniteur having announced the retreat of the Russians behind the 
Pruth, the Vienna Presse states that there was not the slightest 
reason to believe in the fact of such a move.* It appears, on the 
contrary, that not even Wallachia is intended to be evacuated, 
General Liprandi having taken up a position at Plojesti and 
Kimpina, with his outposts stationed at the entrance of the 
Rothenthurm Pass, while the main army, retiring by Slobodzic and 
along the left bank of the Danube, is stated to have halted at 
Brailow. On the other hand, the corps of Ltiders occupying the 
Dobrodja, has not yet abandoned the line of Trajan’s Wall, and it 
is tut likely that, even in case of further retreat, they will 
surrender Matchin and Isaktsha. Fresh troops are said to be 
pouring into Moldavia, where it seems to be the plan of the 
Russians to concentrate a large force. The corps of General 
Panyutin has entered from Podolia, and additional resources are 
being drawn in from Bessarabia. The entire force of the Russians 
in Upper Moldavia, between Jassy, Roman and Botushani, is 
said to amount to 60,000; and a division of 20,000 is encamped 
near Kamenicz. ‘“Paskievich,” says the Ost-Deutsche Post, “has 
declared that in no case will he abandon the mouths of the 
Danube.”” The retreat is explained by the Russians to be only a 
consequence of the plague having broken out on the Higher 
Danube. : 

The movements of the Austrians are still quite undefined. The 
corps of Coronini is stated to have orders to embark on steamers 
at Orsova, and to go down the river to Giurgevo, thence to march 
upon Bucharest. The Corriere Italiano, an Austrian Government 
organ, announces that the object of this move is only to take up a 

July 3, 1854.— Ed. 

neutral position in Wallachia,* and yet at the same time we hear 
that the Austrian “ultimatum” has been declined by Russia. 

“The Russian Emperor,” says the dispatch published in The Morning Chronicle, 
“in his answer to the Austrian summons, expresses his readiness to negotiate with 
the four powers on all points, except on the privileges of the Christian subjects of 
the Sultan. On this subject he will only treat directly with the Porte, and he refuses 
to admit the interference of the four powers. He also refuses to give any 
guarantees for the evacuation of the Principalities.” 

Now, it is quite possible that in consequence of this refusal, a 
sham war between Austria and Russia may occur, to end in some 
such famous rencontre‘ as the remarkable affair at Bronzell,'” 
which ended the sham war between Austria and Prussia in 1850, 
while the newspapers were yet lost in conjectures on the terrible 
eventualities of that “middle European crisis.” In lieu of similar 
speculations on the possible meaning of Austria’s present policy, 
we shall betake ourselves to the fact of the Austro-Turkish treaty 
of June 14, which is now fully and officially made known.‘ 

There are two points to be considered—the relations between 
Austria and Turkey and the relations of the Moldo-Wallachian 
people to Turkey and Austria or other foreign powers, the latter 
point being, strange to say, entirely neglected by the diplomacy- 
ridden opinion of Europe. 

By the first article of the treaty, 

“the Emperor of Austria undertakes to exhaust every means of negotiation and 
others, to obtain the evacuation of the Danubian Principalities by the foreign army 

now occupying them, and even to employ, in case of need, the number of troops 
necessary to attain that end.” 

The Emperor of Austria is thereby entitled to march any 
number of troops into Wallachia, without a previous declaration of 
war on his part against Russia. Thus a Turkish dependency is 
subjected to an operation converting it into a neutral possession 
under Austria against Turkey. By the second article it is agreed 
that 

“it shall belong exclusively to the Imperial commander-in-chief to direct the 
operations of his army. He shall, however, be careful to inform in proper time the 
commander-in-chief of the Ottoman armies of his operations.” 

No, 184, July 3, 1854.— Ed. 

By this agreement the Austrians escape not only from all 
control, on the part of Turkey, over any movement they may 
think fit, but obtain a perfect control of all the operations possibly 
intended on Wallachian ground by the Turkish commander, 
whom they have only to inform that they want to occupy such and 
such a point, when the Turks will be prevented from marching 
there. Considering, now, that the Principalities, besides the narrow 
territory of the Dobrodja, are the only possible battle-field 
between the Turks and the Russians, the Austrian intervention 
simply forbids Turkey to follow up her victories and punish the 
invader. 

By virtue of Article 3, 

“the Emperor of Austria engages to reestablish, in common accord with the 
Ottoman Government, in the Principalities, as soon as possible, the legal state of 
things such as results from the privileges secured by the Sublime Porte relative to 
the government of these countries. The local authorities thus reconstituted shall not, 
however, extend their action so far as to exercise any control over the Imperial 
army....” 

Thus the Emperor of Austria reserves to himself full liberty of 
restoring the legal state when he shall think it possible; and even 
then, he may reconstitute the local authorities only in order to 
place them under Austrian martial law, quite after the fashion of 
the Russian General Budberg. 

According to Article 4, 

“the Imperial Court of Austria engages not to enter into any plan of 
accommodation with the Imperial Court of Russia which shall not have for its 
starting point the sovereign rights of the Sultan and the integrity of his empire.” 

Article 5 adds, 

“that as soon as the object of the present convention shall have been attained by 
the conclusion of a treaty of peace between the Sublime Porte and the Court of 
Russia, the Emperor of Austria will make arrangements to withdraw his forces as 
soon as possible. The details connected with the withdrawal of the Austrian troops 
will form the object of a special arrangement with the Sublime Porte.” 

By the former of these articles Austria reserves to herself the 
right to an arrangement with Russia based simply on the status quo, 
as embodied in the Vienna note.'” By the latter Austria promises 
not to withdraw her troops after an arrangement between herself 
and Russia, but only after the conclusion of a treaty between 
Russia and Turkey. The “material guaranty,” no longer safe in 
the direct keeping of Russia, is transferred to Austria, and Austria 
empowered to hold it for her—with the consent of the Porte— 
until Turkey shall have adhered to the “accommodation between 
the two Imperial Courts.” 

Article 6 entitles the Austrians to feed, without even a 
semblance of payment, upon the remainder left by the Russians in 
the Principalities. The advantages of this arrangement can only be 
appreciated in Germany, where the people are wont to receive 
Austrian garrisons for the punishment of their revolutionary sins, 
and where they grazed off whole districts in 1849-50. 

The treaty is a virtual surrender of the Principalities to Austria, 
and an abandonment of the Turkish suzerainty over them. The 
Turks have committed thereby as flagrant a violation of the rights 
of the Moldo-Wallachian people as any previously committed by 
the Russians. The Turks have as little right to surrender the 
Principalities to Austrian occupation as they have to declare them 
Russian provinces. 

The claims of the Porte to the suzerainty of Moldo-Wallachia 
are founded on the treaties of 1393, 1460 and 1511. The treaty 
concluded in 1393 between Wallachia and Turkey '” contains the 
following articles: 

“Art. I. We, Bayazet, etc. determine, by our extreme condescendence toward 
Wallachia, which has made its submission to our invincible Empire, with its 
reigning Prince," that this country is to continue to govern itself by its own laws, 
and that the Prince of Wallachia shall have the entire liberty of declaring war or 
making peace with his neighbors, how and when it may please him. 

“Art. Il]. The Princes (Christians) will be elected by the Metropolitans and 
Boyards. 

“Art. IV. The Prince of Wallachia will have to pay annually to our Imperial 
Treasury 500 piasters of our money.” 

The treaty concluded in 1460 between Vlad V, Prince of 
Wallachia, and Mohammed II stipulates: 

“Art. I. The Sultan consents and engages, for himself and successors, to protect 
Wallachia and to defend it against every enemy, without exacting anything but the 
suzerainty over this sovereign Principality, of which the Voyvodes will be expected 
to pay to the Sublime Porte a tribute of 10,000 ducats. 

“Art. II. The Sublime Porte will in no way interfere in the local administration 
of the said Principality, and no Turk will be allowed to come into Wallachia without 
an ostensible motive. 

“Art. JH. The Voyvodes will continue to be elected by the Metropolitan 
Archbishop, the Bishops and Boyards, and the electton will be recognized by the 
Porte. 

“Art. 1V. The Wallachian nation will continue to enjoy the free exercise of its 
own laws, and the Voyvodes will have the right of life and death over their 
subjects, as also that of making peace or war, without being subjected for any of 
their acts to any kind of responsibility toward the Sublime Porte.” 

The third treaty is that of 1511 in which Moldavia acknowl- 

edged the suzerainty of the Porte, obtaining even better 
conditions in exchange than Wallachia had obtained. 

The treaties which intervened between Russia and Turkey could 
not of course invalidate the treaties concluded by the Moldo- 
Wallachians themselves with the Porte, since this people never 
treated with the Russians nor gave the Porte power to treat for 
them. It may be stated, besides, that Russia herself recognized the 
above-mentioned capitulations in the treaty of Adrianople, Art. V 
of which says: 

“The Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia, having placed themselves by 
capitulation under the suzerainty of the Sublime Porte, and Russia having 
warranted their prosperity(!), it is understood that they continue to enjoy all those 
privileges and immunities which have been granted to them in virtue of their 
capitulation.” 

It follows, then, from the above-cited capitulations, which, not 
having been superseded by any subsequent treaty, still remain in 
vigor, that the Principalities form two sovereign States under the 
suzerainty of the Porte, to which they pay a tribute on the 
condition that the Porte shall defend them against every and any 
external enemy, and not interfere at all in_ their internal 
administration. So far from being entitled to surrender Wallachia 
to foreign occupation, the Turks themselves are forbidden from 
entering Wallachia without an ostensible motive. Nay, more: Since 
the Turks have thus violated their capitulations with the Wal- 
lachians and forfeited the claims of suzerainty, the Russians might 
even, when appealed to by the Wallachians, found their right of 
driving the Austrians out of the Principalities on the show of 
broken treaties. And this would be by no means surprising, as it 
has been the constant policy of Russia to encourage, and even 
oblige the Turks to violate the rights of the Wallachians, so as to 
produce hostilities between them, and create for herself a pretext 
for intervention. What happened, for instance in 1848? *°° Some 
Boyards in the spring of that year had presented a petition to the 
Hospodar of Moldavia,* demanding certain reforms, which request 
was, by the influence of the Russian Consul,” not only refused but 
caused its authors to be thrown into prison. The commotion 
produced by this act furnished the Russians with a pretext to cross 
the frontier, on June 25, and to march upon Jassy. Simultaneously 
the Hospodar of Wallachia,‘ like the other continental govern- 

ments, granted a number of reforms demanded by the Liberal 
party of the Wallachian Boyards. This was on June 23. It is 
scarcely necessary to remark that these reforms infringed in no 
way upon the suzerainty of the Porte. But they happened to 
destroy entirely all the influence Russia had obtained through the 
fundamental law decreed during their occupation of 1829,?°' 
which the reforms abolished. The constitution replacing it 
suppressed serfdom, and a portion of the land occupied by the 
peasant was ceded to him as property, while the landlord was to 
be indemnified by the State for the land given up and for the loss 
of his peasant’s labor.*” The reigning hospodar was then induced 
by the Russians to remove, and a Provisional Government took up 
the management of the public affairs. The Porte which, as we 
have shown, had no right to interfere in the internal affairs of the 
Principalities, and had omitted to protest against the Russian 
entrance into Moldavia, dispatched Soliman Pasha with a Turkish 
army into Wallachia, and published a very threatening address of 
the Sultan to the inhabitants,* the measures of the Divan being 
taken of course under the influence of Russia. The Wallachians 
went out to meet the Pasha and the Turks, and fraternised with 
them. An agreement was made that the Provisional Government 
should be replaced by a Lieutenance Princiére, composed at first 
of six, and afterward of three members. This Government was 
then recognized by the Pasha, and at the Pasha’s desire, by the 
foreign Consuls. A modification was introduced into the new 
constitution after which that also was confirmed by the Sultan. 
Meanwhile the Russian Government fulminated against the 
Wallachian people in manifestoes addressed to Europe, wherein 
they were charged to have established a republic, and proclaimed 
communism." On the Ist August, 1848, a large Russian force 
crossed the Pruth on its march to Bucharest. Suddenly Soliman 
Pasha was recalled by the Porte; the Sultan refused to receive the 
Wallachian deputies who had gone to Constantinople in answer to 
his own invitation; and on September 25, Fuad Effendi, at the 
head of a Turkish army, presented himself before Bucharest, 
declaring that he had only come to deprive Russia of all pretext 
for entering the Principality. Confiding in the word of the Turks, 
more than 100,000 inhabitants went out from Bucharest and the 
surrounding country, unarmed, in festive garments, and with the 
clergy at their head to welcome them. Fuad Effendi then invited 

* This refers to Soliman Pasha’s letter of July 31, 1848.— Ed. 

them to send a deputation to his camp, so that he might 
communicate to them his instructions. 

“No sooner,” says M.Bratiano in his account of these events, “no sooner did 
the deputation present themselves before Fuad Effendi, than they were made 
prisoners, and at the same time the Turkish army precipitated itself in a forced 
march upon Bucharest, trampling down under the hoofs of his cavalry the peaceful 
inhabitants who had gone out to meet the Turks as friends, tearing down their 
banners, destroying their crosses, bombarding a military barrack which it found on 
its passage, as well as a whole quarter of the town, firing grape-shot at the 
Wallachian soldiers who occupied those barracks, inducing them to capitulate and 
lay down their arms, putting to death the sick, and after having reached the town 
giving themselves up to pillage, massacre and other horrible deeds!”* 

It was here that Gen. Duhamel, the Russian Commissioner, 
accompanied, and in fact commanded the Turkish army. He was 
followed by the Russian army, and the result was the treaty of 
Balta Liman,” i.e. among other things the restoration of the 
Russian fundamental law, or statato which is nothing else than the 
status quo as to which Austria engages [to] reduce Wallachia. 

It is clear that if Omer Pasha should now enter Wallachia with 
his victorious army, the Turks with all their late experience and at 
war with Russia would [have] reestablished the Constitution of 
1848, with the “republic, communism,” and the revival of all the 
creations of 1848 following in its wake. Nobody will believe that 
Austria would have been less displeased with that contingency 
than Russia. On the other hand, it is equally clear, that the Porte must 
have been subject to extraordinary pressure to allow itself to be drag- 
ged into another violation of its treaties with the Wallachians, the conse- 
quences of which it knows by experience. That pressure can have 
proceeded from no quarter but the English Embassador. It is, 
therefore, interesting to record how the same Lord Redcliffe and 
his superiors in Downing-st. behaved in 1848 and ’49 with regard 
to the violations of the rights of Moldo-Wallachia by both Russians 
and Turks. 

When the Russian Army first crossed the Moldavian frontier, in 
June 1848, Lord Palmerston declared in the House of Commons, 
in answer to the inevitable Dudley Stuart: 

“that the Russian troops entered Moldavia without any orders from the Cabinet 
of St. Petersburg, that they only aimed at the maintenance or establishment of 
order, that they would be withdrawn when the occasion had ceased, that the entry 

was on the authority of the Hospodar, and there was no disposition for the 
acquisition of territory.” * 

In August 1848, when the Russian army again crossed the 
Pruth, on their march to Bucharest, and when the Moldo- 
Wallachians had sent a deputation to Constantinople, the Divan 
applied to the Embassadors of England and France for advice, and 
was recommended by Lord Redcliffe to adopt the line of policy 
enjoined by Russia. 

In October, when the Turks and Russians in common occupied 
Wallachia, a Wallachian officer was pursued by the Russians into 
the dwelling of the commander of the Turkish troops at 
Bucharest, Omer Pasha, who in common with Fuad Effendi 
protested. The Porte, informed of this insult, declared it would 
have no more to do with the Russians and order its troops to 
recross the Danube, in order to cease to be the accomplice of the 
Russians in the Principalities, and threatened to address to the 
great powers a solemn protestation, accompanied by a detailed 
memorandum of all that had occurred in the Principalities. The 
same Embassador interfered again and baffled these intentions of 
the Porte. 

Lastly, at the time when the combined Russo-Turkish occupa- 
tion in 1848 had assumed the character of a reign of terror, and 
when Magheru, the commander of the Wallachian irregulars alone 
resisted, he was induced to withdraw beyond the Carpathian 
mountains “‘by the persuasion of the British Consul-General,” who 
represented to him that the presence of his army would paralyze 
the action of diplomacy, but that his country would soon be 

righted.” 7° 

Written on July 4, 1854 Reproduced from the New-York 

Tribune, No. 671, July 22, 1854