Karl Marx 
Lord Palmerston 

(As published in the "New-York Tribune") 

New-York Daily Tribune. 
Nr. 3902, 19. Oktober 1853 

Palmerston. 

The Eastern complications have worked a great change in England, if not 
as to parties, at least as to the men at the head of parties. Lord Palmerston 
has again become a popular favorite. He is in everybody's mouth, he is the 
only man to save England, he is confidently announced as the indispensable 
Premier of any modified Cabinet, extolled alike by the Tories, the Whigs, 
the self-styled patriots, the press, and public opinion in general. 
So extraordinary a phenomenon is the Palmerston maniathat one is tempt- 
ed to suppose it to be of a merely factitious character, got up not for home 
consumption, but as an article of export, destined for foreign use. This, 
however, would be a mistake. Ruggiero is again and again fascinated by the 
false charms of Alcine, which, as he knows, disguise an old witch, "sans eyes, 
sans teeth, sans taste, sans everything,” and the knight-errant cannot with- 
stand falling in love with her anew, whom he knows to have transmuted all 
her former adorers into asses and other beasts. The English public is another 
Ruggiero and Palmerston another Alcine. Although a septuagenarian, who, 
since 1807, has occupied the public stage almost without interruption, he 
continues to remain a novelty, and to evoke all the hopes that used to center 
upon untried and promising youth. With one foot inthe grave, he is supposed 
not to have begun his true career. If he were to die to-morrow all England 
would be surprised to learn that he had been a Secretary of State, for half 
a century. 
If not a good statesman of all work he is a good actor of all work. He 
succeeds in the comic as in the heroic, in pathos as in familiarity, in tragedy 
as in farce, although the latter may be more congenial to his feelings. He is 
not a first-class orator, but an accomplished debater. Possessed of a wonder- 
ful memory, of great experience, of consummate tact, of never-failing 
presence of mind, of gentleman-like variety of talent, of the most minute 
knowledge of parliamentary tricks, intrigues, parties and men, he handles 

Karl Marx 

difficult cases in an admirable manner, and with apleasant volatility, sticking 
to the prejudices and the susceptibilities of his audience, secured from any 
surprise by his cynic impudence, from any self-confession by his selfish 
dexterity, and from running into a passion by bis profound frivolity, his 
perfect indifference, and his aristocratic contempt. Being an exceedingly 
happy joker, he ingratiates himself with every body. Never losing his temper, 
he imposes on passionate antagonists. Ifunable to master a subject, heknows 
how to play with it. If wanting general views, he is always ready to weave 
a web of elegant generalities. 

Endowed with a restless and indefatigable spirit, he abhors inactivity and 
pines for agitation, if not for action. A country like England allows him, of 
course, to busy himself in every corner of the earth. If he can do nothing, 
he will devise anything. Where he dares notinterfere, he intermeddles. When 
unable to vie with a strong enemy he extemporizes aweakone. Whathe aims 
at is not the substance, but the mere appearance of success. Being no man 
of deep designs, pondering on no combinations of long standing, pursuing 
no great object, he embarks in difficulties with a view to disentangle himself 
from them in a showy manner. He wants complications to feed his activity, 
and when he finds them not ready, he will create them. He exults in show- 
conflicts, show-battles, show-enemies, diplomatic notes to be exchanged, 
ships to be ordered to sail, all ending in violent parliamentary debates, which 
are sure to prepare for him anephemeral success—the constant and exclusive 
object of all his exertions. He manages international conflicts like an artist, 
driving matters to a certain point, retreating when they threaten to become 
serious, but having got, at all events, the dramatic excitement he desires. The 
history of the world is, in his eyes, a pastime, expressly invented for the noble 
Viscount Palmerston of Palmerston. He is a great sample of that species 
designated by Thomas Carlyle as the sham captains of the world. 

Yielding to foreign influence in fact, he opposes it in words. Having in- 
herited from Canning England's mission of propagating Constitutionalism 
on the continent, he never lacks a theme to pique the national prejudices, 
so as to counteract revolution abroad, and, at the same time to keep awake 
the suspicious jealousy of foreign powers. Having succeeded in this easy 
manner in becoming the béte noire of the continental courts, he could not 
fail to be set up as the truly English minister at home. Although a Tory by 
origin, he has introduced into the management of foreign affairs all the shams 
that form the essence of Whiggism. He knows how to conciliate a large 
phraseology with narrow views, how to clothe the policy of a peace- 
mongering middle-class in the haughty language of England's aristocratic 
past, how to appear an aggressor where he yields, and a defender where he 
betrays, how to manage his apparent enemy, and how to exasperate his 

Lord Palmerston - Palmerston 

pretended ally, how to find himself, at the opportune moment, on the side 
of the stronger against the weak, and how to utter brave words in the act 
of running away. 

Accused by one party of being inthe pay of Russia, he is supposed by the 
others to be made up of Carbonarism. If, in 1848, he had to defend himself 
against a motion of impeachment for having acted as the minister of Nicho- 
las, he had, in 1850, the satisfaction of being persecuted by a conspiracy of 
foreign embassadors, which was successfulinthe House of Lords but baffled 
in the House of Commons. If he has betrayed foreign peoples, he did it with 
great politeness, politeness being the small coin of the devil, which he gives 
in change for the life-blood of his dupes. If the oppressors were always sure 
of his active support, the oppressed never lacked a great ostentation of his 
rhetorical generosity. Poles, Italians, Hungarians, Germans, found him in 
office, whenever they were crushed, but their despots suspected him always 
of secret conspiracy with the victims he had already allowed them to make. 
At all events, it has been till now a probable chance of success to have him 
for one's adversary, and a sure chance of ruin to have him for one's friend. 
But, if his art of diplomacy does not shine in the actual results of his foreign 
negotiations, it shines the more brilliantly in the construction he has induced 
the English people to lay upon them, by accepting phrases for facts, phan- 
toms for realities, and high-sounding pretexts for shabby motives. 

Henry John Temple, Viscount Palmerston, deriving his title from a peerage 
of Ireland, was nominated Lord of the Admiralty in 1807, on the formation 
of the Duke of Portland's administration. In 1809 he was created Secretary 
at War, and continued to hold this office till May, 1828. In 1830 he went over 
to the Whigs, who made him their permanent minister of Foreign Affairs. 
Excepting the intervals of Tory administration from November, 1834, till 
April, 1835, and from 1841 to 1846, he is responsible for the whole foreign 
policy of England from the revolution of 1830 till December, 1851. 

Is it not a very curious thing to find, at first view, this Quixotte of free 
institutions and this Pindar of the "glories of the constitutional system," a 
permanent and active member of the Tory Administrations of Mr. Perceval, 
the Earl of Liverpool, Mr. Canning, Lord Goderich and the Duke of Welling- 
ton, during the fatal epoch when the Anti-Jacobin war was carried on, the 

monster debt contracted, the corn laws enacted, foreign troops stationed in 
England, the people "Weeded" from time to time, the press gagged, meetings 
suppressed, the mass of the nation disarmed, individual liberty together with 
the regular jurisdiction of the courts, suspended, the whole country placed 
as it were under a state of siege—in one word, during the most infamous and 
most reactionary epoch of English history? 

His debut in Parliamentary life was of a no less characteristic sort. On 

Karl Marx 

February 3, 1808, he rose to defend— what? Secresy in diplomatic negoti- 
ations, and the most disgusting act ever committed by any nation against 
another nation, namely, the bombardment of Copenhagen and the capture 
of the Danish fleet at atime when England was supposed to be in profound 
peace with Denmark. As to the first point, he stated that, in this particular 
case, his Majesty's ministers "are pledged to secrecy," but he improved on 
this statement: "I also object generally to making public the working of 
diplomacy, because it is the tendency of disclosures in that department to 
shut up future sources of information." Vidocq would have defended the 
identical cause in the identical terms. As to the act of piracy itself, while 
admitting that Denmark had evidenced no hostility whatever to Great Britain, 
he justified the bombarding its capital and the stealing its fleet on the plea 
that it had been done to prevent Danish neutrality from being converted into 
open hostility on the compulsion of France. This was the new law of nations 
he proclaimed. 

When again speechifying, we find this English minister par excellence 
engaged in the defense of the foreign troops, called over from the Continent 
to England with the express mission of maintaining forcibly the oligarchic 
rule, to establish which William had come over in 1688, accompanied by his 
Dutch troops. To the well-founded "apprehensions for the liberties of the 
country," originating from the presence of the King's German Legion, 
Palmerston answered with great flippancy of manner: "Why should we not 
have 16,000 of those foreigners at home, while you know that we employ 
a far larger proportion of foreigners abroad?" When similar "apprehensions" 
arose from the large standing army, maintained since 1815 in England, he 
found "a sufficient protection of the constitution in the very constitution of 
our army," a large proportion of the officers being "men of property and 
connections." When the large standing army was attacked from a financial 
point of view, he made the curious discovery, that "much of our commercial 
embarrassment has been caused by our former low peace establishment." 
When the "burdens of the country" and the "misery of the people" were 
contrasted with the vast military expenditure, he reminded Parliament that 
those burdens and that misery "were the price which we (the English Oli- 
garchy) agreed to pay for our freedom and independence." 

If in his eyes,nilitary despotism was to be apprehended, it was only from 
the exertions of "those self-called but misled reformers who demand that 
sort of reform in the country which, according to every just principle of 
government, must end, if it were acceded to, in a military despotism." While 
large standing armies were thus his panacea for maintaining the constitution 
of the country, corporal punishment and flogging were his panacea for 
maintaining the constitution of the army. He defended flogging in the debates 

Lord Palmerston : Palmerston 

onthe Mutiny bill on March 5,1824; he declared it to be "absolutely indis- 
pensable" on March 11,1825; he recommended it again on March 10,1828; 
he stood by it inthe debates of April, 1833, and he has proved atrue amateur 
of flogging on every subsequent occasion. There has existed no abuse in the 
army which he would not gift with plausible reasons, if it happened to foster 
the momentary interests of aristocratic parasites. An instance of this may 
be found in the debates on the sale of half-pay commissions, on March 12, 
1828. 
Lord Palmerston likes to parade his constant exertions for the establish- 
ment of religious liberty. Now, he voted against Lord John Russell's motion 
for the "Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts," and why? Because he 
was "a warm and zealous friend to religious liberty, and could, therefore, 
not allow the Dissenters to be relieved from imaginary grievances, while real 
inflictions pressed upon the Catholics." "I regret," he informs us, "to see 
the increasing number of Dissenters. It is my wish that the Established 
Church should be the predominant one inthis country;" and from pure love 
and zeal for religious liberty he wants this Established Church to be fed at 
the expense of the misbelievers. His jocose Lordship accuses the rich Dis- 
senters of satisfying the ecclesiastical wants of the poorer ones, while "with 

20 the Church of England it is the poor alone who want church accomodations ; 

it would be preposterous to say that the poor ought to subscribe for churches 
out of their small earnings." It would of course be yet more preposterous 
to say that the rich members of the Established Church ought to subscribe 
for churches out of their large earnings. 
Let us now look at his exertions for Catholic Emancipation-one of his 
great aims having been to gain the gratitude of the Irish people. We do not 
dwell on the circumstance that, having declared himself for Catholic Emanci- 
pation when a member of the Canning ministry, he nevertheless entered the 
Wellington ministry avowedly hostile to that measure. Did Lord Palmerston, 
then consider religious liberty as one of the rights of man, not to be inter- 
meddled with by legislation? He may answer for tiimself: "Although I wish 
the Catholic claims to be considered, I never will admit these claims to stand 
upon the ground of right. If I thought the Catholics were asking for their right, 
I, for one, would not go into the Committee." And why did he oppose their 
asking for their right? "Because the legislature of a country has the right to 
impose such political disabilities upon any class of the community as it may 
deem necessary for the safety and the welfare of the whole. This belongs 
to the fundamental principles on which a civilized government is founded." 
Here, then, we have the most cynical confession ever made, that the mass 
of the people have no rights at all, but that they may enjoy that quantity of 
immunities the legislature, or in other words, the ruling class, may deem fit 

Karl Marx 

to grant them. In accordance with this, Lord Palmerston declared in plain 
words, "Catholic Emancipation to be a measure of grace and favor." 

It was then entirely upon the ground of expediency that he condescended 
to discontinue the Catholic disabilities. And what was lurking behind this 
expediency? Being himself one of the great Irish landed proprietors, he 
wanted to entertain the delusion that "other remedies for Irish evils than 
-Emancipation are impossible;" that it would cure Absenteeism, and prove 
a cheap substitute for poor laws. This great philanthropist, who afterward 
cleared his Irish estates of their Irish natives, could not allow Irish misery 
to darken, even for one moment, with its inauspicious clouds, the bright sky 
over the Parliament of landlords and money lords. "It is true," he exclaims, 
"that the peasantry of Ireland do not enjoy all the comforts which are 
enjoyed by the peasantry of England." Only think of all the comforts enjoyed 
by a family at the rate of seven shillings a week. "Still," he continues, "still, 
however, the Irish peasant has his comforts. He is well supplied with fuel, 
and is seldom (only five days out of six) at a loss for food." But this is not 
all the comfort he has. He has a greater "cheerfulness of mind" than his 
English fellow-sufferer. As to the extortions of Irish landlords, he deals with 
them in ano less pleasant way than with the comforts of the Irish peasantry. 
"It is said that the Irish landlord insists on the highest possible rent that can 
be extorted. Why, Sir, I believe thatis not a singular circumstance. Certainly, 
in England the landlord does the same thing." Are we, then, to be surprised 
that this man, so deeply initiated into the mysteries of "the glories of the 
English Constitution" and the comforts of "free institutions," aspires at 
spreading them all over the Continent? 

Itis known that, when the Reform-movement had grown irresistible, Lord 
Palmerston deserted the camp of the Tories, and skilfully effected his junc- 
tion with the Whigs. We have seen that he once apprehended danger of 
military despotism from the demands of the self-called Reformers. 
Nevertheless, as early as 1828, he patronised the extension of the franchise 
to such large industrial places as Birmingham, Leeds, and Manchester, "not 
because Iam a friend to Reform in principle, but because lam its decided 
enemy," calculating that some timely compromise with the overgrown 
factory-kings might be the only way of escaping "the introduction of general 
reform. "Having passed over to the Whigs, he did not even pretend that their 
Reform bill aimed at breaking through the narrow trammels of the Venetian 
Constitution, but, on the contrary, at increasing its strength and solidity, by 
severing the middle-class interest from the people's opposition. "The feelings 
of the middle classes will be changed, and their dissatisfaction will be con- 
verted into that attachment to the Constitution, which will give to it a vast 
increase of strength and solidity." He consoled the Peers by telling them that 

Lord Palmerston - Palmerston 

the Reform bill would neither weaken "the influence of the House of Lords," 
nor put a stop to its "interfering in elections." He told the Aristocracy that 
the Constitution was not to lose its feudal character, "the landed interest 
being the great foundation upon which rests the fabric of society and the 
institutions of the country." He allayed their fears by throwing out ironical 
hints that "we have been charged with not being in earnest or sincere in our 
desire to give to the people areal representation," that "it was said we only 
proposed to give a different form of influence to the aristocracy and the 
landed interest." He even went so far as to own that, beside the inevitable 
concessions to be made to the overgrown manufacturing interest, "dis- 
franchisement," that is to say, a new kind of distribution of rotten boroughs 
between the Tory Aristocrats and the Whig Aristocrats was the chief and 
leading principle of the Reform bill. 
We will now return to his performances in the foreign branch of policy 
during the Tory period of his Ufe. In 1823, when, in consequence of the 
resolutions of the Congress of Verona, a French army was marched into 
Spain, in order to overturn the Constitution of that country and to deliver 
it up to the merciless vengeance of the Bourbon idiot and his suite of bigot 
monks, Lord Palmerston disclaimed any Quixotic crusade for "abstract 
principles"—any intervention in favor of a people whose heroic resistance 
had saved England from Napoleon, The words he addressed on that occasion 
to his Whig opponents are a true and lively picture of his own foreign policy, 
after he had become their permanent Minister of Foreign Affairs. "Some," 
said he, "would have had us use threats in negotiation without being prepared 
for going to war, if negotiation failed. To have talked of war and to have 
meant neutrahty—to have threatened an army and to have retreated behind 
a state-paper—to have brandished the sword of defiance in the hour of 
deliberation and to have ended in a penf ul of protests on the day of battle, 
would have been the conduct of a cowardly bully, and would have made us 
the object of contempt and the laughing-stock of Europe." 
At last we arrive at the Grecian and Turkish debates, which afforded Lord 
Palmerston the first opportunity of displaying publicly bis talents as the 
unflinching and persevering advocate of Russia in the Cabinet and in the 
House. One by one he reechoed the watchwords given by Russia, of Turkish 
monstrosity—Greek civilization, religious liberty, Christianity, etc. At first 
we meet him repudiating, as the Minister of War, any intention of passing 
a censure "upon the meritorious conduct of Admiral Codrington," which 
caused the destruction of the Turkish fleet at Navarino, although he admitted 
that "the battle took place against a power with which we are not at war." 
After this, having left office, he opened his long series of attacks upon Lord 
Aberdeen by reproaching him with having been to slow in the execution of 

Karl Marx 

the Czar's orders. "Has there been much more energy and promptitude in 
fulfilling our engagements to Greece? July, 1829, is coming fast upon us, and 
the treaty of July, 1827, is still unexecuted. The Morea indeed, has been 
cleared of the Turks, but why were the arms of France checked atthe Isthmus 
of Corinth? The narrow policy of England stepped in and arrested her pro- 
gress. But why do not the allies deal with the country north of the Isthmus 
as they have done with that to the South, by occupying at once all that which 
must be assigned to Greece? I should have thought that the allies had had 
enough of negotiating with Turkey about Greece." 

It is well known that it was Prince Metternich, who at that time opposed 
the encroachments of Russia, and that her diplomatic agents, such as Pozzo 
di Borgo, Prince Lieven and others, had accordingly received orders to 
denounce Austria, as the stupid ally of the Sultan. Lord Palmerston followed 
of course in the beaten track: "By the narrowness of her views, the un- 
fortunate prejudices of her policy, Austria has almost reduced herself to the 
level of a second-rate power," and in consequence of the temporizing policy 
of Aberdeen, "England is now represented as the keystone of that arch of 
which Miguel and Spain and Austria and Mahmud, are the component parts. 
It is thus that people see in the delay in executing the treaty of July not so 
much fear of Turkish resistance, as invincible repugnance to Grecian free- 
dorn." 

For half a century one phrase has stood as a barrier between Russia and 
Constantinople—the phrase of the integrity of the Turkish Empire being 
necessary to the balance of power. "I object" exclaims Palmerston on Feb. 5, 

1830, "to the policy of making the integrity ofthe Turkish dominion in Europe 25 

an object essentially necessary to the interests of Christian and civilized 
Europe." Again he returns to attack Aberdeen: "I, for one, shall not be 
satisfied with a number of dispatches from the Government of England, 
which will no doubt read well and smooth enough, urging in general terms, 
the propriety of conciliating Russia, but accompanied, perhaps, by strong 
expressions of the regard which England bears to Turkey, which when read 
by an interested party, might easily be made to appear more than was really 
intended. I should like to see, that while England adopted a firm resolution — 
almost the only course she could adopt—upon no consideration and in no 
event to take part with Turkey in that war, that that decision was fairly and 
frankly communicated to the Turk. There are three merciless things: time, 
fire and the Sultan." 

Before proceeding further, let us recall to memory a few historical facts: 
Russia having seized on Gokcheh, a strip of land bordering on the lake of 
Sevan, (the undisputed possession of Persia,) demanded, as the price of its 
evacuation, the abandonment of Capan—another portion of the Persian 

Lord Palmerston - Palmerston 

territory. Persia not yielding, was overrun, vanquished, and forced to sub- 
scribe to the treaty of Turcomanchai, in February, 1828. According to this 
treaty, Persia had to pay an indemnity of two millions sterling to Russia, to 
cede the provinces of Erivan and Nuktchivan, including the fortresses of 
Erivan and Abassabad, in order to define the common frontier by the Araxes; 
this being the only means, as Nicholas pretended, of preventing any future 
disputes between the two empires. But at the same time, he refused to give 
back Talish and Moghan, situated beyond the Russian side of the Araxes. 
Finally, Persia was also bound to maintain no navy on the Caspian Sea. Such 
were the origin and the results of the Russo-Persian war. As to the religion 
and the liberty of Greece, Russia cared, then, as much about them, as the 
"God of the Russians" cares now about the keys of the Holy Sepulchre, and 
the famous Cupola. It was the traditional policy of Russia to excite the 
Grecians to revolt, and then to abandon them to the vengeance of the Sultan. 
So profound was her sympathy for the regeneration of Hellas, that she 
treated them as rebels at the Congress of Verona, acknowledging the Sultan's 
right to exclude all foreign intervention between himself and his Christian 
subjects. In fact, the Czar "offered to aid the Porte in suppressing the 
Greek rebellion"—a proposition which was, of course, rejected. Having 
failed in this attempt, he turned round upon the great Powers, by proposing 
"to march an army into Turkey, for the purpose of dictating peace under the 
walls of the Seraglio." But, in order to hold his hands bound by common act, 
the Powers concluded with him atreaty at London, on July 6,1827, by which 
they mutually engaged to enforce the adjustment of the differences between 
Turkey and Greece. A few months after signing that treaty, Russia concluded 
with Turkey the treaty of Akerman, on the express understanding that she 
should renounce all interference in Greece. This treaty had been brought 
about after Russia had induced the Prince Royal of Persia to invade the 
Ottoman dominions, and after she had inflicted the greatest injuries on the 
Porte, in order to drive it to arupture. All this having taken place, the reso- 
lutions of the London treaties of July 6, 1827, were presented one fine 
morning, to the Porte, in the name of Russia and the other Powers. 

In consequence of the complications resulting from the Russian lies and 
frauds, the Czar at last found a pretext to begin the war of 1828 and 1829. 
This was terminated by the treaty of Adrianople, whose substance is con- 
tained in the following quotation from McNeill's celebrated pamphlet on the 
progress of Russia in the East: 

"By the treaty of Adrianople the Czar acquired Anapa and Poti, with a 
considerable extent of coast on the Black Sea, a portion of the Pachalik of 
Akhilska, with the two fortresses of Akhilska and Akhilkillak, the islands 
formed by the mouth of the Danube. The destruction of the Turkish fortress 

Karl Marx 

of Georgiova and the abandonment by Turkey of the right bank of the 
Danube to the distance of several miles from the river, were stipulated— 
partly by force, and partly by the influence of the priesthood many thousand 
families ofthe Armenians were removed from the Turkish provinces in Asia 

to the Czar's territories. He established for his own subjects in Turkey an 5 
exemption from all responsibility to the national authorities, and burdened 

the Porte with an immense debt under the name of expenses for the war and 

for commercial losses, and finally retained Moldavia and Wallachia and 
Silistria in pledge for its payment. Having by this treaty imposed upon Turkey 

the acceptance of the protocol of March 22, which secured to her the suzerai- 10 
neté of Greece, and a yearly tribute from this country, Russia used all her 
influence to procure the independence of Greece which was indeed erected 
into an independent state; of which Count Capo d'Istria, who had been a 
Russian Minister, was named Presii/eni." 

These are the facts. Now look at the picture drawn of them by the master- 15 
hand of Lord Palmerston in a speech in the House of Commons on Feb. 16, 
1830: "It is perfectly true that the war between Russia and Turkey arose out 
of aggressions made by Turkey onthe commerce and rights of Russia, and 
violations of treaties." We find him, however, as the Whig Minister of 
Foreign Affairs improving on this theme: "The honorable and gallantmem- 20 
ber (Col. Evans) has represented the conduct of Russia as one of unvarying 
aggression upon other States, from 1815 to the present time. He adverted 
more particularly to the wars of Russia with Persia and Turkey. Russia was 
the aggressor in neither of them, and although the result of the Persian war 
was an aggrandizement of her power, it was not a result of her own seeking. 25 
Again, in the Turkish war Russia was not the aggressor. It would be fatiguing 
to the House to detail all the provocations Turkey offered to Russia; but I 
believe there cannot be a doubt that she violated all the provisions of the 
treaty of Ackerman, and then, upon complaint made, denied redress; so that, 
if ever there was a just ground for going to war Russia had it for going to 30 
war with Turkey. She did not, however, on that occasion acquire any increase 
of territory, at least, in Europe. I know that there was a continued occupation 
of certain points (Moldavia and Wallachia are only points, and the mouths 
of the Danube are mere zeros,) and some additional acquisitions on the 
Euxine in Asia, but she had an agreement with the other European powers, 35 
that success in that war should not lead to any aggrandizement in Europe." 

Our readers will now understand Sir Robert Peel's telling Lord Palmerston 
in a public session of the House, that "he did not know whose representative 
he was." This was a plain way of saying he was not the representative of 
liberty, or honesty, or what makes the best character of England. Such as 40 
the noble lord was then, and in the earlier part of his career which we have 

Lord Palmerston - Palmerston and Russia 

reviewed, he is at this day, and none who know him can expect at his hands 
any but false service to the cause of justice and human rights in the present 
momentous crisis. What remains of his public history we leave for another 
day; we are sorry to say that it is not the better half. 

New-York Daily Tribune. 
Nr. 3916, 4. November 1853 

Palmerston and Russia. 

At a recent meeting in London, to protest against the action of the British 
Ministry, in the present controversy between Russia and Turkey, a gentle- 
man who presumed to find special fault with Lord Palmerston, was saluted 
and silenced by a storm of indignant hisses. The meeting evidently thought 
that if Russia had a friend in the Ministry it was notthe noble Viscount, and 
would no doubt have rent the air with cheers, had some one been able to 
announce that his Lordship had become Prime Minister. This astonishing 
confidence in a man so false and hollow, is another proof of the ease with 
which people may be imposed on by brilliant abilities, and a new evidence 
of the necessity of taking off the mask from this wily enemy to the progress 
of human freedom. Accordingly, with the history of trie last twenty-five 
years, and the debates of Parliament for guides, we proceed with the task 
of exposing the real part which this accomplished actor has performed in 
the drama of modern Europe. 

The noble Viscount is generally known as the chivalrous protector of the 
Poles, and never fails of giving vent to his painful feelings with regard to 
Poland, before the deputations which are once every year presented to him 
by "dear dully-deadly" Dudley Stuart, who has been described by one, not 
too friendly or too just to his Lordship, as "a worthy who makes speeches, 
passes resolutions, votes addresses, goes up with deputations, has at all times 
the necessary quantity of confidence in the necessary individual, and can 
also, if necessary, give three cheers for the Queen." 

The Poles had been in arms for about a month when Lord Palmerston came 
into office, in November, 1830. As early as August 8,1831, Mr. Hunt presents 
to the House a petition from the Westminster Union in favor of the Poles, 
and "for the dismissal of Lord Palmerston from His Majesty's councils." 
Mr. Hume stated on the same day that he concluded from the silence of the 
noble Lord that the Government "intended to do nothing for the Poles, but 
allow them to remain at the mercy of Russia." To this Lord Palmerston 
replied, "that whatever obligations existing treaties imposed would at all 

Karl Marx 

times receive the attention ofthe Government." Now what sort of obligations 
were, in his opinion, imposed upon England by existing treaties? "The claim 
of Russia to the possession of Poland bears the date of the Treaty of Vienna," 
he tells us, in a speech made in the House of Commons, on July 9,1833 ; and 
that treaty makes this possession dependent on the observance of the Polish 
Constitution by the Czar. But from a subsequent speech we learn that "the 
mere fact of this country being a party to the treaty of Vienna was not 
synonymous with our (England's) guaranteeing that there would be no in- 
fraction of that treaty by Russia." That is to say, you may guarantee atreaty, 
without guaranteeing that it shall be observed. This is the principle on which 
the Milanese said to the Emperor Barbarossa: "If you have had our oath 
remember that we never swore to keep it." 

In one respect the treaty of Vienna was good enough. It gave to the British 
Government, as one of the contracting parties, "a right to entertain and 
express an opinion on any act which tends to a violation of thattreaty.— The 
contracting parties to the treaty of Vienna had a right to require that the 
Constitution of Poland should not be touched, and this is an opinion which 
I have not concealed from the Russian Government. I communicated it by 
anticipation to that Government previous to the taking of Warsaw, and 
before the result of hostilities was known. I communicated it again when 
Warsaw fell. The Russian Government, however, took a different view of 
the question." So said our hero on the 9th of July, 1833. He had quietly 
anticipated the downfall of Poland, and had availed himself of the opportu- 
nity to entertain and express an opinion on certain articles of the treaty of 
Vienna, persuaded as he was, that the Czar was merely waiting till he had 
crushed the Polish people by armed force, to do homage to a Constitution 
he had trampled upon when they were yet possessed of unbounded means 
of resistance. At the same time the noble Lord charged the Poles with having 
"taken the uncalled-for and in his opinion unjustifiable step of the de- 
thronement of the Emperor. He could also say that the Poles were the 
aggressors, for they commenced the contest." 

When the apprehensions that Poland would be extinguished became 
universal and troublesome, he declared that "to exterminate Poland, either 
morally or politically, is so perfectly impracticable, that I think there need 
be no apprehension of its being attempted." When afterward reminded of 
the vague expectation thus held out, he averred that he had been misunder- 
stood, and that he said so, not in the political, but the Pickwickian sense of 
the word, meaning that "the Emperor of Russia was unable to physically 
exterminate so many milhons of men as the Polish Kingdom, in its divided 
state contained." When the House threatened to interfere duringthe struggle 
in favor of the Poles, he appealed to his ministerial responsibility. When the 

Lord Palmerston - Palmerston and Russia 

thing was done, he told them coolly that "no vote ofthat House would have 
the slightest effect in reversing the decision of Russia." When the atrocities 
committed by the Russians, after the fall of Warsaw, were denounced, he 
recommended the House to cherish a great tenderness toward the Emperor 
of Russia, declaring that "no person could regret more than he did, the 
expressions which had been uttered;" that "the present Emperor of Russia 
was a man of high and generous feelings;" that "where cases of undue 
severity on the part of the Russian Government to the Poles had occurred, 
they might set this down as a proof that the power ofthe Emperor of Russia 
was practically limited, and they might take it for granted, thatthe Emperor 
had, in those instances, yielded to the influences of others, rather than 
followed the dictates of his spontaneous feelings." When onthe one side the 
utter ruin of Poland was secured, and on the other the dissolution of the 
Turkish Empire became imminent from the progress of Ibrahim Pasha, he 
assured the House that "affairs in general were proceeding in a satisfactory 
train." A motion for granting subsidies to the Polish refugees having been 
made, it was "exceedingly painful to him to oppose the grant of any money 
to those individuals, which the natural and spontaneous feelings of every 
generous man would lead him to acquiesce in," but "it was not consistent 
with his duty to propose any grant of money to those unfortunate persons," 
this same tender-hearted man having secretly defrayed, as we shall see by 
and by, in a great part, the cost of Poland's fall out of the pockets of the 
English people. The noble Lord took good care to withhold all state papers 
about the Polish catastrophe from Parliament, but several statements made 
in the House of Commons, which he has never so much as attempted to 
controvert, leave no doubt about the game he played at that fatal epoch. 
After the Polish revolution had broken out, the Consul of Austria did not 
quit Warsaw, and his Government went as far as to send a Polish agent, 
Mr. Walewski to Paris, for the purpose of negotiating with the Governments 
of France and of England, about the re-establishment of a Polish Kingdom. 
The Court of the Tuileries declared "it was ready to join England in case 
of her consenting to the project." Lord Palmerston repudiated the proposal. 
In 1831, M. de Talleyrand, the then Ambassador of France at the Court of 
St. James, proposed a plan of combined action on the part of France and 
England, but met with a distinct refusal, and with a note from the noble Lord 
stating "that an amicable intermediation on the Polish question would be 
declined by Russia; that the Powers had just declined a similar offer on the 
part of France, that the intervention of the two Courts, France and England, 
could only be by force in case of a refusal on the part of Russia, and that 
the amicable and satisfactory relations between the Cabinet of St. James and 
the Cabinet of St. Petersburg would not allow His British Majesty to under- 

Karl Marx 

take such an interference. The time was not yet come to undertake such a 
plan with success against the will of a sovereign, whose rights were indis- 
putable." 

The so-called kingdom of Poland having disappeared from the map of 
Europe, there still remained a fantastic remnant of the Polish nationality in 
the free town of Cracow. The Czar Alexander, during the general anarchy 
resulting from the downfall of the French empire, had not conquered the 
Duchy of Warsaw, but simply seized upon it and wished to keep it, together 
with Cracow, which had been incorporated in the Duchy by Bonaparte. 
Austria, once possessed of Cracow, wished to have it again. The Czar being 
unable to obtain it for himself, and being unwilling to cede it to Austria, 
proposed to constitute it as a free town, and accordingly the treaty of Vienna 
contained the following stipulation: 

"The town of Cracow, with its territory, is to be forever af ree, independent 
and strictly neutral city, under the protection of Austria, Russia and Prussia, 
and the Courts of Russia, Austria and Prussia engage to respect, and to 
cause to be always respected, the neutrality of the free town of Cracow 
and its territory. No armed force shall be introduced upon any pretense 
whatever." 

In 1831, Cracow was temporarily occupied by Russian troops. This, how- 
ever, was considered as a transitory necessity of war, and in the turmoil of 
that time it was not adverted upon. In 1836, Cracow was again occupied by 
the troops of Russia, Austria and Prussia, on the pretext of their being obliged 
to accomplish, in that way, the expulsion of some Polish refugees from the 
town and its territory. On this occasion the noble Lord abstained from all 
remonstrance on the ground, as he stated, in 1836 and in 1840, "that it was 
difficult to give effect to our remonstrances."—As soon, however, as Cracow 
was definitively confiscated by Austria, a simple remonstrance appeared to 
him to be "the only effectual means."—In March, 1836, when interpellated 
on the occupation of Cracow, he declared it to be of a merely transitory 
character. In fact, so palliative and apologetic was the construction he put 
on the doings of his three northern allies, that he felt himself obliged to stop 
suddenly, and interrupt the even tenor of his speech by the assertion: "I stand 
not up here to defend a measure, which, on the contrary, I must censure and 
condemn. I have merely stated those circumstances which, though they do 
not excuse the forcible occupation of Cracow, might yet afford a justi- 
fication" etc. He admitted that the treaty of Vienna bound the three powers 
to abstain from any step without the previous consent of England, but "they 
may be justly said to have paid an involuntary homage to the justice and the 
plain dealing of this country by supposing that we would never give our 
assent to such a proceeding." 

Lord Palmerston - Palmerston and Russia 

Mr.Patrick M.Stewart, however, having found out that there existed 
better means for the preservation of Cracow than the "abstention from 
remonstrance," moved, on April 20,1836, that the Government should be 
ordered to send a representative to Cracow as Consul, there being Consuls 
there from the three other powers, Austria, Russia and Prussia. The joint 
arrival at Cracow of an English and French Consul would have proved an 
event, and must, in any case, have prevented the noble lord from afterward 
declaring himself unaware of the intrigues pursued at Cracow by the Austri- 
ans, Russians and Prussians. He induced Mr. Stewart to withdraw his motion 
by solemnly promising that the Government "intended to send a Consular 
Agent to Cracow." On March 22,1837, being interpellated by Lord Dudley 
Stuart with regard to that promise, he answered that "he had altered his 
intention, and had not sent a Consul or Agent to Cracow, and it was not at 
present his intention to do so." 

Lord Dudley Stuart having given notice that he should move for papers 
to elucidate this singular transaction, the noble Viscount defeated the motion, 
by the simple process of being absent, and causing the House to be counted 
out on May 25,1837. He never stated why or wherefore he had not fulfilled 
his pledge, and withstood all attempts to squeeze out of him any papers on 

the subject. Ten years afterward, when Cracow was doomed, and when the 

noble Lord was again asked for the production of papers relating to the 
non-appointment of a British Consul at Cracow, he declared that "the subject 
had no necessary connection with the discussion on the incorporation of 
Cracow, and he saw no advantage in reviving an angry discussion on a subject 
which had only a passing interest." He now proved true to his opinion on 
the production of State papers as expressed on March 17,1837 by saying, 
"If the papers bear upon a question now under consideration, their produc- 
tion would be dangerous; if they refer to questions that are gone by, they 
can obviously be of no use." The British Government was, however, very 
exactly informed as to the importance of Cracow, not only ina political, but 
also ina commercial point of view, the Consul at Warsaw, Col. du Plat, having 
reported in detail thereupon. 

Lord Palmerston, himself, was obliged to confess in the House, that the 
Cracow insurrection of 1846 had been intentionally provoked by the three 
great powers. "He believed the original entrance of the Austrian troops into 
the territory of Cracow, was in consequence of an application from the 
Government. But then those Austrian troops retired. Why they retired had 
never yet been explained. With them retired the Government and the au- 
thorities of Cracow; the immediate, at least the early consequence of that 
retirement, was the establishment of a Provisional Government at Cracow." 
On the 22d of February, 1846, the forces of Austria, and afterward those of 

Karl Marx 

Russia and Prussia, took possession of that city. On the 26th of February, 
the Prefect of Tarnow issued his proclamation calling on the peasants to 
murder their landlords, promising them "a sufficient recompense in money," 
which proclamation was followed by the Gallician atrocities and the massa- 
cre of about 2,000 land-holders. On March 12, appeared the Austrian procla- 

mation to "the faithful Gallicians, who have aroused themselves for the 
maintenance of order and of law, and destroyed the enemies of order." In 
the official Gazette of April 28, Prince Frederic of Schwartzenberg stated 
officially "that the acts that had taken place had been authorized by the 
Austrian Government," which, of course, acted on a common plan with 

Russia and Prussia. Now, after all these abominations had passed, the noble 
Lord was not ashamed to declare in the House, that "he had too high an 
opinion of the sense of justice and of right, that must animate the Govern- 
ments of Austria, of Prussia, and of Russia, to believe that they can feel any 
disposition or intention to deal with Cracow, otherwise than Cracow is 

entitled by treaty engagements to be dealt with." For him the only business 
then in hand was to get rid of Parliament, whose session was drawing to a 
close. He assured the Commons, that "on the part of the British Government 
everything should be done to insure a due respect being paid to the provisions 
of the treaty of Vienna." When Mr.Hume uttered a doubt about Lord 

Palmerston's "intention to cause the Austro-Russian troops to retire from 
Cracow," the noble Lord begged of the House not to give credence to the 
statements made by Mr. Hume, as he was in possession of better information 
and was convinced that the occupation of Cracow was only a temporary 
one. 

The Parliament of 1846 having been got rid of in the same manner as the 
Parliament of 1853, out came the Austrian proclamation of Nov. 11, 1846, 
incorporating Cracow into the Austrian dominions. When Parliament reas- 
sembled on January 19,1847, it was informed by the Queen's Speech that 
Cracow was gone, but that in its place there existed a protest on the part of 
the brave Palmerston. But in order to deprive his protest even of the appear- 
ance of meaning anything at all, the noble Lord had contrived, at that very 
epoch, to engage England in a quarrel with France on occasion of the Spanish 
marriages, which came very near bringing the two countries into collision—a 
performance which was sharply overhauled by Mr. Smith O'Brien, in the 
House of Commons, on March 16, 1847. When the French Government 
applied to the noble Lord for cooperation in a joint protest against the in- 
corporation of Cracow, Lord Normanby—under the instructions of the noble 
Viscount—answered that the outrage of which Austria had been guilty, in 
annexing Cracow, was not greater than that of France, in effecting a marriage 
between the Duke of Montpensier and the Spanish Infanta, the one act being 

Lord Palmerston - Palmerston and Russia 

a violation of the treaty of Vienna, and the other of the treaty of Utrecht. 
Now, the treaty of Utrecht which had been renewedin 1782, was definitively 
abrogated by the Anti-Jacobin war and had, therefore, ever since 1792, 
ceased to be operative. There was no man in the House better informed of 
this circumstance than the noble lord, as he had stated himself to the House 
on the occasion ofthe debates on the blockades of Mexico and Buenos Ayres 
that "the provisions of the treaty of Utrecht had long since lapsed in the 
variations of war, with the exception of the single clause relating to the 
boundaries of Brazil and French Guiana, because that clause had been by 
express words incorporated into the treaty of Vienna." 
But we have not yet exhibited all the exertions of the noble lord in resisting 
the encroachments of Russia upon Europe. 
There once existed a curious convention between England, Holland, and 
Russia—the so-called Russian-Dutch Loan. During the Anti-Jacobin war the 
Czar Alexander had contracted a loan with the Messrs. Hope & Co. at 
Amsterdam, and after the downfall of Bonaparte, the King of the Nether- 
lands, "desirous to make a suitable return to the Allied powers for having 
delivered his territory," and for having annexed to it Belgium, to which he 
had no right whatever, obliged himself, as the other powers waived their 
common claims in favor of Russia, which was then in great need of money, 
to execute with that power a convention agreeing to pay her, by successive 
installments, the 25,000,000 florins she owed to the Messrs. Hope. England, 
in order to cover the robbery she had committed on Holland with regard to 
the colonies of the Cape of Good Hope, of Demerara, Esquibo and Berbice, 
became a party to this convention, and bound herself to pay a certain propor- 
tion of the subsidy granted to Russia. This stipulation became a part of the 
treaty of Vienna, but upon the express condition "that the payment should 
cease, if the union between Holland and Belgium were broken prior to the 
liquidation of the debt." When Belgium separated herself by a revolution 
from Holland, the latter, of course, refused to pay her portion, onthe ground 
that the loan had been contracted to continue her in the undivided possession 
of the Belgian provinces, and that she no longer had the sovereignty of that 
country. On the other hand there remained, as Mr. Herries stated in Parlia- 
ment, "not the smallest iota of claim onthe part of Russia for the continuance 
of debt by England." Lord Palmerston, however, found it quite natural, that 
"at one time Russia should be paid for supporting the union of Belgium with 
Holland, and that at another time she should be paid for supporting the 
separation of those countries." He appealed in a very solemn manner for 
the faithful observance of treaties, and above all, of the treaty of Vienna, 
and he contrived to carry anew Convention with Russia, dated on Nov. 16, 
1831, in the preamble of which it is expressly stated, that it was contracted 

Karl Marx 

"in consideration of the general arrangements of the Congress of Vienna, 
which remain in full force." When the convention, relating to the Russian- 
Dutch Loan, had been inserted into the treaty of Vienna, the Duke of 
Wellington exclaimed, "this is a masterstroke of diplomacy on the part of 
Lord Castlereagh, for Russia has been tied down to the observance of the 
Vienna treaty by a pecuniary obligation." When Russia, therefore, withdrew 
her observance of the treaty of Vienna, by the confiscation of Cracow, 
Mr. Hume moved a resolution to stop any further annual payment to Russia 
from the British treasury. The noble Viscount, however, thought that, al- 
though Russia had a right to violate the treaty of Vienna with regard to 
Poland, England must remain bound by that very treaty withregard to Russia. 
But this is not the most extraordinary incident in these curious transactions. 
After the Belgian revolution had broken out, and before Parliament had 
granted the new loan to Russia, the noble Lord defrayed the costs of the 
Russian war against Poland, under the pretext of paying off the old debt 
contracted in 1815, although we can state, on the authority of the greatest 
English lawyer, the then Sir Edward Sugden, now Baron St. Leonards, "that 
there was not a single debateable point in that question, and the government 
had no power whatever to pay a shilling of the money;" and on the authority 
of Sir Robert Peel, who declared, "that Lord Palmerston was not warranted 
by law in advancing the money." 

Our readers will now understand why the noble Lord reiterates, on every 
occasion, that "nothing can be more painful to men of proper feeling than 
discussions turning on the subject of Poland." They can also appreciate the 
degree of earnestness he is now likely to exhibit in resisting the en- 
croachments of the power he has so uniformly served. 

New-York Daily Tribune. 
Nr. 3930, 21. November 1853 

A Chapter of Modern History. 

There are those who expect that in the war between Turkey and Russia, 
which has now begun, the British Government will at last abandonits system 
of half-way measures and fruitless negotiations to act with energy and effect 

in repelling the Muscovite invader back from his prey and from the universal 
dominion he dreams of. Such an expectation may not be without some ground 
of abstract probability and policy to justify it; but how Utile real reason there 
is for it will appear to whoever ponders the facts below set forth with regard 
to the past conduct of that English Minister who is thought to be most hostile 

to the advance of Russian despotism in Europe. Indeed, most people in 

Lord Palmerston - A Chapter of Modern History 

England who are dissatisfied with the policy ofthe Governmentinthe contest 
between Turkey and Russia, fondly believe that matters would be in a very 
different state if Lord Palmerston had the control of them. Such per- 
sons, in recalling the noble Viscount's history, must leave blank the whole 
eventful period from 1832 to 1847—a blank which we will fill up for their in- 
struction. 

The great and ever-recurring theme of the Palmerstonian self-glorification 
is the services rendered to the cause of Constitutional freedom all over the 
Continent. It must be admitted that the world is indebted to him for the 

1 o constitutional model-kingdoms of Portugal, Spain and Greece. Having placed 

Portugal at the disposition of that fattest of women, Maria da Gloria, backed 
by a Coburg, he exclaimed in the House of Commons: "Portugal must now 
be looked upon as one ofthe substantive Powers of Europe." The noble Lord 
had hardly uttered these words when, at his command, six British ships- 
of-the-line anchored at Lisbon, in order to protect the substantive daughter 
of Don Pedro from the Portuguese people, and to help her destroy the 
constitution she had sworn to defend. Spain, crushed beneath the yoke of 
another Maria—the she-wolf of Naples—"holds out to us," according to his 
sanguine view of the case, "a fair and legitimate hope that she may yet 
become what she has proved in former times—a flourishing and even a 
formidable power among the European Kingdoms." Nor was he short of 
apologetic reasons, even for having placed the native country of Pericles and 
Sophocles under the sway of an idiot Bavarian boy. "King Otho belongs to 
a country where there exists a free constitution." A free constitution in 
Bavaria, the German Bceotia! This passes the licentia poetica of rhetorical 
flourish, the legitimate hopes held out by Spain and the substantive power 
of Portugal. As to Belgium, all Lord Palmerston ever did for it was to burden 
it with a part of the Dutch debt, while docking it of the province of Luxem- 
bourg, and adding to it a Coburg dynasty. But let us come to the Turks and 
Russians. 
One of those facts which are hardly adverted to by contemporaries, but 
which broadly mark the boundaries of historical epochs, was the military 
occupation of Constantinople by the Russians, in 1833. The eternal dream 
of Russia was at last fulfilled. The barbarian from the icy banks of the Neva 
held in his iron grasp, however temporarily, the luxurious Byzantium and 
the sunlit shores of the Bosphorus. As Sir Robert Peel declared in the House 
of Commons in 1834, "The occupation of Constantinople by Russian troops 
sealed the fate of Turkey as an independent power. The fact of Russia having 
occupied Constantinople even for the purpose of saving it, was as decisive 
a blow to Turkish independence, as if the flag of Russia now waved on the 
Seraglio." 

Karl Marx 

In consequence of the unfortunate war of 1828-1829, and the treaty of 
Adrianople, the Porte had lost its prestige in the eyes of its own subjects. 
As usual with Oriental Empires where the paramount power is weakened, 
successive revolts of powerful Pashas broke out against the Sultan, and 

Mehemet Ali, Pasha of Egypt, who had supported the Porte during the Greek 5 

insurrection, marched his troops, under the command of Ibrahim Pasha, his 
son, into Syria. The transactions between Mehemet Ali and the Sultan 
commenced as early as October, 1831. Inthe spring of 1832 Syria was invaded 
by Ibrahim Pasha; in July the battle of Horns decided the fate of that 
Province; Ibrahim crossed the Taurus; the last Turkish army was annihilated 
at Konieh, in December 21, and the victorious Egyptian forces moved on 
the way to Stambul. On February 2, 1833, the Sultan was forced to apply 
to St. Petersburg for succor. On February 17, the French Admiral Roussin 
arrived at Constantinople, remonstrated with the Porte, and engaged to bring 
about a retreat of the Pasha on certain terms, including the refusal of Russian 
assistance; but unassisted as he was, he could not hope to vie with Russian 
influence. "You have asked for me, and you shall have me." On February 20, 
a Russian squadron suddenly sailed from Sebastopol, and disembarked a 
large body of Russian troops upon the shores of the Bosphorus, to occupy 
the capital. So eager was Russia for the protection of Turkey, that simulta- 
neously a Russian officer was dispatched to the Pashas of Erzerum and 
Trebizond to inform them that in the event of Ibrahim's army marching 
toward Erzerum, both that place and Trebizond should be immediately 
protected by a Russian army. Some months later Count Orloff arrived, 
intimating to the Sultan that without the concurrence of any Minister and 
without the knowledge of any diplomatic agent at the Porte, he was to 
subscribe a little bit of paper he had brought with him from St. Petersburg. 
Thus originated the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi. According to it the Porte 
entered for eight years upon an alliance, offensive and defensive, with 
Russia; precluded itself from contracting during that time any new treaties 
with other powers except with the concurrence of the Czar; and confirmed 
all her former treaties with Russia. By a secret article, appended to the treaty, 
the Porte obliged itself "in favor of the Imperial Court of Russia to close 
the straits of the Dardanelles and not to allow any foreign man-of-war to enter 
them under any pretext whatever." 

To whom was the Czar indebted first for materially holding Constantinople 
by his troops, and then for morally transferring, by virtue of the treaty of 
Unkiar Skelessi, the supreme seat of government from Constantinople to 
St. Petersburg? To nobody else than the Right Hon. Henry John Viscount 
Palmerston, Baron Temple, a Peer of Ireland, a member of Her Majesty's 
most honorable Privy Council, Knight of the Great Cross of the most honor- 

Lord Palmerston - A Chapter of Modern History 

able Order of the Bath, a Member of Parliament, and then the principal 
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. 

On July 8,1833, the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi was concluded. On July 11, 
1833, Mr. H. L. Bulwer was curious enough to ask the noble lord for the 
production of papers with respect to Turkish and Syrian affairs. The noble 
lord opposed the motion, "because the transactions to which the papers 
called for referred, were incomplete, and the character of the whole trans- 
action would depend upon its termination. As the results were not yet known, 
the motion was premature." 

Being accused by Mr. Bulwer of having failed to defend the Sultan against 
Mehemet Ali, and to prevent the advance of the Russian army, he began that 
curious system of defense and of confession, developed on later occasions, 
the membra disjecta of which we now gather together for the first time. On 
July 11,1833, he said, "he was not prepared to deny that the latter part of 

last year an application was made on the part of the Sultan to this country 
for assistance." This formal application for assistance the Porte made at first 
in the course of August, 1832. No, not in August. "The request of the Porte 
for naval assistance was made in the month of October, 1832." No, it was 
not in October, as we learn from a speech made a year later. "Assistance 
was asked by the Porte on November 3,1832." The noble lord is as uncertain 
as to the date when the Porte implored his assistance as Falstaff was of the 
number of rogues in buckram who beset him and whom he put to rout. 

He is not prepared, however, to deny that Russia having offered her armed 
assistance to the Porte, it was refused, and he was applied to. He refused 
his assistance. However, the Porte again applied to the noble lord. First, it 
sent Mr. Maurojeni to London, imploring his aid. Then it sent Namick Pasha 
to entreat the assistance of a naval squadron, undertaking to defray all the 
expenses, and promising, in further requital for such succor, the grant of new 
commercial privileges and advantages to British subjects in Turkey. So sure 
was Russia of refusal on the part of the noble lord, that she joined the Turkish 
Envoy in praying for his lordship's assistance. He tells us himself, in August, 
1833: "It was but justice that he should state, that so far from Russia having 
expressed any jealousy as to this Government granting that assistance, the 
Russian Embassador officially communicated to him, while the request was 
still under consideration, that he had learned that such an application had 
been made, and that, from the interest taken by Russia in the maintenance 
and preservation of the Turkish Empire, it would afford satisfaction if 
Ministers could find themselves able to comply with that request." His 
lordship remained however inexorable to the demands of the Porte, even 
when backed by disinterested Russia herself. Then, of course, the Porte knew 
what it was about, and comprehended that it was doomed to accept the 

Karl Marx 
Russian assistance. "Great Britain," says the noble lord, "never complained 
of Russia granting that assistance, but, on the contrary, was glad that Turkey 
had been able to obtain effectual relief from any quarter." 

At whatever epoch the Porte may have applied for assistance from Lord 
Palmerston, he is forced to own that "no doubt if England had thought fit 
to interfere, the progress of the invading army would have been stopped, and 
the Russian troops would not have been called in." Why then did he not think 
fit to interfere, and to avoid having the Russian troops called in? At first he 
pleads want of time. Having himself stated that the conflict between the 
Sultan and Mehemet Ali arose as early as October, 1831, while the battle of 
Konieh did not happen till December, 1832, could he find no time during all 
this period? A great battle was won by ftrahim in 1832, and he again found 
no time from July to December. But all this time he was waiting for a formal 
application on the part of the Porte and, according to his last version, that 
was not made until November 3. "Was he then," exclaimed Sir Robert Peel, 
"so ignorant of what was passing in the Levant that he must wait for a formal 
application?" From the 3d of Nov. 1832, when the formal application was 
made, till the latter part of February, 1833, there elapsed four long months, 
and the Russians did not arrive till Feb. 20. Why did he not arrive before 
them? But he has a better reason in reserve. 

The Pasha of Egypt was but a rebellious subject. The Sultan was the 
sovereign. The observance of etiquette did not allow the noble lord to inter- 
meddle between them. "As it was a war against a sovereign by a subject, 
and that sovereign was in alliance with the King of England, it would have 
been inconsistent with good faith to have had any communication with the 
Pasha." Like the Spanish grandee, the noble lord would rather let the Queen 
burn to ashes than step over etiquette and interfere with her petticoats. But 
it happens that the noble lord had already, in 1832, accredited Consuls and 
Diplomatic Agents to the Egyptian subject of the Sultan without the consent 
of the Sultan; that he had entered into treaties with Mehemet Ah altering 
existing regulations and arrangements touching matters of trade and revenue; 
that he did not ask the consent of the Porte beforehand, nor even care for 
its approbation afterward; and that he had thus treated "the rebellious 
subject" as an independent power. Accordingly the then chief of the noble 
Viscount, Earl Grey stated in the House of Lords that "they had at that 
moment extensive commercial relations with Mehemet Ah, which it would 
not have been our interest to disturb." 

But the fleets of the noble Viscount were occupied in the Douro and the 
Tagus, and in blockading the Scheldt, and doing the office of midwife at the 
birth of the constitutional empires of Portugal and Belgium, and he was 
therefore not in a situation to send a single man-of-war for such trifles as pre- 

Lord Palmerston - A Chapter of Modern History 

venting Russia from occupying Constantinople, or Mehemet Ali from en- 
dangering the status quo of the world; and what the Sultan asked for was, 
unfortunately, naval assistance. For argument's sake, we will grant that he 
was unable to dispose of one single vessel. But there are great authorities 
asserting that not even a single vessel was wanted, but only a single word 
on the part of the noble lord, in order to check the ambition of Mehemet Ali 
and the armies of Ibrahim Pasha. Lord Mahon tells us this, and when he made 
his statement he had just been employed at the Foreign Office under Sir 
Robert Peel. Admiral Codrington, the destroyer of the Turkish fleet at 
Navarino, holds similar language. "Mehemet Ali," he states, "had of old felt 
the strength of our representation on the subject of the evacuation of the 
Morea. He had then received orders from the Porte to resist all applications 
to induce him to evacuate it at the risk of his head, and he did resist ac- 
cordingly, but at last prudently yielded, and evacuated the Morea."—Or take 
the testimony of the Duke of Wellington: "If, in the session of 1832 or 1833, 
they had plainly told Mehemet Ali that he should not carry on his contest 
in Syria and Asia Minor, they would have put an end to the war without the 
risk of allowing the Emperor of Russia to send a fleet and an army to 
Constantinople." 

But there are still better authorities. Hear the noble lord himself: "Al- 
though His Majesty's Government did not comply with the demand of the 
Sultan for naval assistance, yet the moral assistance of England was af- 
forded; and the communications made by the British Government to the 
Pasha of Egypt and to Ibrahim Pasha, commanding in Asia Minor, did 
materially contribute to bring about that arrangement (of Kutayah) between 
the Sultan and the Pasha, by which the war was terminated." Lord Derby, 
then Lord Stanley and a Member of the Palmerston Cabinet, also "boldly 
asserts that what stopped the progress of Mehemet Ah was the distinct 
declaration of France and England that they would not permit the occupation 
of Constantinople by his troops." 

Thus, according to Lord Palmerston liimself and to his colleague—and this 
is the most curious feature of these curious transactions—it was by no means 
the Russian army and squadron, but a distinct declaration on the part of the 
British Consular Agent at Alexandria, that stopped Ibrahim Pasha in his 

victorious march upon Constantinople and brought about the convention of 
Kutayah, according to which Mehemet Ah obtained, besides Egypt, the 
Pashalik of Syria and that of Adana with other places added as an appendage. 
But the noble lord thought fit not to allow his Consular agent at Alexandria 
to make this declaration till after the Turkish army was annihilated, Con- 
stantinople occupied by Cossacks, and the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi signed 
by the Sultan and pocketed by the Czar. 

Karl Marx 

If want of time and want of fleets prevented the noble lord from assisting 
the Sultan; if a superfluity of etiquette prevented him from checking the 
Pasha; did he at least employ his Embassador at Constantinople to guard 
against the excessive influence of Russia and to keep her interference con- 
fined to narrow bounds? Quite the contrary. The noble Viscount, in order 
not to clog the movements of Russia, took good care that there should be 
no Embassador at all at Constantinople, during the most fatal period of the 
crisis. "If ever there was a country," exclaims Lord Mahon, "in which the 
weight and station of an Embassador was useful, or a period in which that 
weight and station might be advantageously exerted, that country was 
Turkey, during the six months before the 8th of July, 1833." Now the noble 
Viscount tells us himself that Sir Stratford Canning, the British Embassador, 
left Constantinople in September, 1832, that Lord Ponsonby, then at Naples, 
was appointed, in his place, in November, and that "difficulties were ex- 
perienced in making the necessary arrangements for his conveyance," al- 
though a man-of-war was in waiting for him, "and the unfavorable state of 
weather did prevent him getting to Constantinople until the end of May, 
1833." 

Sir Stratford Canning is recalled in September and Lord Ponsonby ap- 
pointed in November. But Ibrahim Pasha had not yet crossed the Taurus, 
not yet fought the battle of Konieh and the Russians had not yet seized upon 
Czarigrad. Accordingly Lord Ponsonby is ordered to employ seven months 
in sailing from Naples to Constantinople. 

But why should Lord Palmerston prevent the Russians from occupying 
Constantinople? "If he had quietly beheld the temporary occupation of the 
Turkish capital by the forces of Russia, it was because he had full confidence 
in the honor and good faith of Russia. The Russian Government, in granting 
aid to the Sultan, had pledged its honor, and in that pledge, he reposed the 
most implicit confidence." With the same confidence he had relied upon 
Russia not abolishing the Polish Constitution and Nationality. Meanwhile the 
Czar had abolished both by the Organic Statute of 1832—but the most implicit 
confidence of the noble lord remained unshaken. Nothis is the fault, if nature 
has developed his protuberance of confidence to anomalous dimensions. So 
inaccessible, integral, indestructible, inexpugnable, imperishable, in- 
calculable, incommensurable, irremediable and unchangeable, so boundless, 
dauntless, matchless, is his confidence, that even on March 17,1834, after 
the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi had become a fait accompli, he goes on de- 
claring that "in their confidence Ministers were not deceived." Beside the 
security he possessed in the honor and good faith of Russia, he had another 
security "in the doubt that any intention to partition that Empire (the Otto- 
man Empire) at all entered into the policy of the Russian Government." 

Lord Palmerston - A Chapter of Modern History 

Certainly, Russia has neyer desired to partition that Empire, butto keep the 
whole of it. He had another security in the other "doubt, whether it enters 
into the policy of Russia at present to accomplish the object," and a third 
security in another "doubt, whether the Russian nation would be prepared 
to see that transference ofpower, ofresidence, and authorityto the Southern 
Provinces, which would be the necessary consequence of the conquest by 
Russia of Constantinople." 

The contents of the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi were published by the jour- 
nals of London on August 21, 1833. On August 24, Lord Palmerston was 
interrogated by Sir Robert Inglis, inthe House of Commons, "whether there 
had really been concluded a treaty offensive and defensive between Russia 
and Turkey?" Sir Robert Inglis hoped "that the noble lord would be prepared 
before the prorogation of Parliament to lay before the House, not only the 
treaty that had been made, but all communications connected with the 
formation of those treaties between Turkey and Russia." The noble lord 
answered that "when they were sure that such a treaty as that alluded to 
really did exist, and when they were in possession of that treaty, it would 
then be for them to determine what was the course of policy they ought to 
pursue, and it could be no blame to him, when the newspapers were some- 
times beforehand with the Government.” Seven months afterwards, he 
averred that "it was perfectly impossible that the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, 
which was not ratified at Constantinople until the month of September, 
should have been officially known to him in August." 

Now, was the noble lord really not sure in August that such a treaty 
"really" existed? Was he at that time not yet in possession of that treaty? 
At alater epoch, in March, 1848, he himself stated that "the British Govern- 
ment was surprised to find that when the Russian troops quitted the Bospho- 
rus they carried that treaty withthem." This proved that he was in possession 
of the treaty before it had been concluded. "No sooner," said Mr. Anstey, 
in a speech in 1848, "had the Porte received it than the treaty was com- 
municated by them to the British Embassy at Constantinople, with a prayer 
for our protection against Ibrahim Pasha and against Nicholas. The applica- 
tion was rejected. But that was not all. With an atrocious perfidiousness, the 
fact was made known to the Russian Minister. Next day, the very copy of 
the treaty, which the Porte had lodged with the British Embassy, was re- 
turned to the Porte by the Russian Embassador, who ironically advised the 
Porte to choose better, another time, its confidants." 

But all the noble Viscount cared for he had obtained. Having been inter- 
rogated with respect to the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, on August 24, 1833, 
Parliament was prorogued on August 29, receiving from the throne the 
consolatory assurance, that "the hostilities which had disturbed the peace 

Karl Marx 

of Turkey, had been terminated; and they might be assured that the King's 
attention would be carefully directed to any events which might affect the 
present state or the future independence of that Empire." Here then we have 
the key to the mystery of the famous Russian treaties of July. In July they 

are concluded ; in August something transpires about them through the public 5 

press ; Lord Palmerston is interrogated in the Commons; he, of course, knows 
nothing about them; Parliament is prorogued, and, when it reassembles, the 
treaty has grown old, or, as in the instance of the treaty of July, 1840, the 
noble lord has employed the interval in executing it, in spite of Parliament 
and public opinion. 

On August 29, 1833, Parliament was prorogued. On February 5, 1834, it 
reassembled, but the interval between its prorogation and its meeting, was 
marked by two incidents mtimately connected with each other. On the one 
hand, the united French and English fleets had proceded to the Dardanelles, 
and having displayed the tricolor and the union-jack, both sailed away to 
Smyrna and thence to Malta. On the other hand, on January 29,1834, anew 
treaty was concluded between the Porte and Russia—the treaty of St. Peters- 
burg. Scarcely had this treaty been signed, when the united fleet was with- 
drawn. 

This combined maneuver was intended to stultify the British people and 
Europe into the belief that the hostile demonstration on the Turkish seas and 
coasts, directed against the Porte for having concluded the treaty of Unkiar 
Skelessi, had induced Russia to replace it by the new treaty of St. Petersburg. 
This treaty, promising the evacuation of the Principahties with the exeption 
of Silistria, and reducing the Turkish payments to Russia by two-thirds, 
apparently relieved the Porte from some engagements forced on it by the 
treaty of Adrianople. In all other respects it was a simple ratification of the 
treaty of Adrianople, not at all relating to the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, nor 
dropping a single word about the passage of the Dardanelles. Onthe contrary, 
the small alleviations it granted to Turkey were the bribe paid for the ex- 
elusion of Europe obtained by the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi in favor of 
Russia. Let us hear Mr.Anstey on this head: "At the very day that the 
demonstration of the British fleet was being made, an assurance was given 
by the noble lord to the Russian Embassador at this Court, that this combined 
movement of the combined squadrons was not intended in any sense hostile 
to Russia, nor to be taken as a hostile demonstration against her, but that, 
in fact, it meant nothing at all. I say this on the authority of Lord Ponsonby, 
the noble lord's own colleague, the Embassador at Constantinople." 

Parliament having reassembled, there appeared in The London Globe, the 
organ of the Foreign Office, a paragraph announcing the treaty of St. Peters- 
burg as "a proof either of the moderation or good sense of Russia, or of the 

Lord Palmerston - A Chapter of Modern History 

influence which the union of England and France, and the firm and concerted 
language of those two countries, have acquired in the councils of St. Peters- 
burg." Thus public attention was to be diverted from the treaty of Unkiar 
Skelessi, and the animosity soothed down which it had aroused in Europe 
against Russia. 

Artful as this dodge was, it would not do. On March 17, 1834, Mr. Sheil 
brought in a motion for "copies of the treaties between Turkey and Russia, 
and of any correspondence between the English, Russian, and Turkish 
Governments, respecting those treaties." The noble lord resisted this motion 

to the utmost. So grossly contradictory were his reasons for not indulging 

the request of Mr. Sheil, that Sir Robert Peel, in his Parliamentary language, 
could not but call him "a very unconclusive reasoner," and that the noble 
lord's own Colonel Evans could not avoid exclaiming that: "the speech of 
the noble lord appeared to him the most unsatisfactory he had ever heard 
from him." When the production of papers was first demanded, on July 11, 
1833, the motion was "premature," because the «transactions were incom- 
plete," and "the result not yet known." When the noble lord was again 
interrogated, on August 24,1833, "the treaty was not officially signed, and 
he was not in possession of it." Now, on March 17,1834, "communications 
were still carrying on—the discussions, if he might so call them, were not yet 
completed." He enjoined the House not to press upon him, as "peace could 
be preserved only by the House reposing confidence in the Government," 
which, if let alone, would certainly protect the interests of England from 
encroachment. Three years later, in a thin House, composed almost entirely 
of his retainers, he came roundly out and told Mr. Thomas Attwood very 
coolly that "the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi was a matter which had gone by," 
and that it had never been "the intention of the Government to have recourse 
to hostile measures to compel Russia and Turkey—two independent powers— 
to cancel the treaty made between them." 

The noble lord, so far from endeavoring to refute Mr. Shell's statement, 
that "the consequence of the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi was the same as if 
the Porte surrendered to Russia the possession of the Dardanelles," was 
obliged to own that it closed the Dardanelles to British men-of-war, and that 
"he did not mean to say, that under its provisions even merchant vessels 

might not, in effect, be practically excluded from the Black Sea," in the case 
of a war of England with Russia. But if the Government acted "with temper," 
if it "showed no unnecessary distrust," that is, if it submitted quietly to the 
encroachments of Russia, he was "inclined to think that the case might not 
arise in which that treaty would be called into operation, and that therefore 
it would, in practice, remain a dead letter." And besides, "the assurances 
and explanations which the British Government had received from the 

Karl Marx 

contracting parties to that treaty, greatly tended to remove his objections 
to it." In order to mystify the House, he dropped some words to the effect, 
according to the language held by Russia, the treaty must be looked upon 
"as one of reciprocity, that reciprocity being, that ifthe Dardanelles should 
be closed against England in the event of war, they should be closed against 
Russia also." This statement was simply false, but if true, "this certainly was 
Irish reciprocity, for it was all on one side." 

Thus then, it was not the articles of the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, but the 
assurances Russia gave with respect to them; it was notthe acts of Russia, 
he had, in his opinion, to look upon, but rather the language she thought fit 
to hold. Yet, when on the same day the attention of the noble lord was called 
to the protest of the French Charge d'Affaires, M. de Lagrené, against the 
treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, and the offensive and contumelious language of 
Count Nessehode, answering him that the Emperor of Russia would act "as 
if the declaration contained in the note of M. de Lagrené had no existence," 
then the noble lord, eating his own words, propounded the opposite doctrine, 
that it "was on all occasions, the duty of the English Government to look 
rather to the acts of a foreign power, than to the language which that power 
might hold on any particular subject or occasion." At one moment he appeals 
from the acts of Russia to her language, and the other from her language to 
her acts. Fourteen years afterward, when the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi had 
long elapsed and the noble lord was just about acting the play of the Truly 
English Minister and the Civis Romanus sum, he told Parliament plainly that: 
"The treaty of Unkiar Skelessi was, no doubt, to a certain degree forced upon 
Turkey by Count Orloff, the Russian Envoy, under circumstances"—created 
by the noble lord himself—"which rendered it difficult for Turkey to refuse 
acceding to it—that it gave practically to the Russian Government a power 
of interference and dictation in Turkey not consistent with the independence 
of that State." The great triumphant argument which, during the whole 
transactions with respect to the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, the noble lord had 
ready to oppose to all the attacks upon his connivance with Russia, was that 
of his intimate alliance with France. Like the clown in the comedy, he had 
an answer of monstrous size, that must meet all demands and serve all 
questions, namely: The Anglo-French Alliance. When he was pointed at with 
sneers because he had allowed the Russian occupation of Constantinople, 
he retorted that, "if the present relations established between this country 
and France were pointed at in these sneers, he would only say, that he should 
look with feelings of pride and satisfaction at the part he had acted in bringing 
about that good understanding." When the production of the papers relating 
to the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi was demanded, he answered, that "England 
and France had now cemented a friendship, which had only grown stronger." 

Lord Palmerston - A Chapter of Modern History 

But Sir Robert Peel exclaimed that "he could but remark that whenever the 
noble lord was thrown into a difficulty, as to any part of our foreign European 
policy, he at once found aready means of escape by congratulating the House 
upon the close alliance of this country with France." At the same time the 
noble lord took good care not to quenchthe suspicions of his Tory opponents, 
that he had been compelled to connive at an aggression upon Turkey by 
Mehemet Ah, because France had directly encouraged it. 

Thus at that time the apparent alliance with France was to cover a secret 
infeoffment to Russia, just as in 1840, the artificially managed rupture with 
France was to sanction an official alliance with Russia. 

While the noble lord fatigued the world by publishing ponderous folios of 
fruitless negotiations on the affairs of the Constitutional Empire of Belgium, 
and with ample explanations, verbal, and documentary, with regard to the 
substantive power of Portugal, to this moment it has proved quite impossible 
to wrest from him any document whatever relating to the first Syriac and 
Turkish war and to the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi. Even in 1848 he resisted 
the production of those papers, although Mr. Anstey stated plainly that, in 
asking for them, he did so with the view to prove the noble lord's collusion 
with the Czar. The noble lord preferred killing time by a five hours’ speech 
to killing suspicion by setf-speaking documents. 

His system of fictions, pretexts, contradictions, traps and incredible state- 
ments reached its climax, when, on December 14, 1837, he objected to a 
resolution of Mr. T. Attwood for the production of the papers connected with 
the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, on the ground that "the papers connected with 
that treaty were laid before the House three years ago," viz., in 1834, and 
that "it was atreaty entered into for ahmited period," and "that period having 
expired, its introduction by the honorable member was wholly unnecessary 
and uncalled for." The noble Viscount knew as well that the papers were 
not laid before the House in 1834, or at any other period, as that the treaty 

of Unkiar Skelessi, far from having expired on December 14,1837, continued 
to remain in full vigor tul July 8, 1841. 

Such a gross system of fraud formed the last refuge of an English Minister, 
who had opened Constantinople to a Russian army, and closed the Darda- 
nelles to the English navy, and who had helped the Czar to get possession 
of Constantinople for months and the control of Turkey for years. How 
absurd then to suppose that he is now likely to turn about and oppose afriend 
he has so long and so faithfully served. 

Karl Marx 

New-York Daily Tribune. 

Nr. 3973,11. Januar 1854 

England and Russia. 

Lord Palmerston's resignation seems to be working in England all the 
marvels he could have hoped from it. While the public indignation is be- 
coming more and more active against the Cabinet he has abandoned, and 
whose policy he had on all occasions, up to the last moment of his connection 
with them, emphatically endorsed, the very parties loudest in their de- 
nunciations of the Coalition, vie with each other in the praise of Palmerston. 
And while they call for energetic and honorable resistance to the en- 
croachments of Russia, on the one hand, they seem to desire nothing so much 
as the restoration of their favorite statesman to high office on the other. Thus 

this accomplished and relentless actor deludes the world. It would be an 
amusing spectacle were the interests involved less momentous. How deep 
is the delusion we have already had occasion to show, and now add below 
a new demonstration of the truth that, for some reason or other, Lord 
Palmerston has steadily labored for the advancement of Russia, and has used 

England for that purpose. Those who seek to look behind the scenes of 
current history and to judge events and men at their real value will, we think, 
find our exposure instructive. 

One glance over the map of Europe will show us on the western side of 
the Black Sea the outlets of the Danube, the only river which springs up in 
the very heart of Europe, and may be said to form a natural highway to Asia. 
Exactly opposite, on the eastern side of the Euxine, southwards of the river 
Kuban, begins the mountainous range of the Caucasus, which, stretching 
from the Black Sea to the Caspian in a south-easterly direction for some 
700 miles, separates Europe from Asia. 

The power which holds the outlets of the Danube necessarily holds the 
Danube also, the highway to Asia, and with it controls a great deal of the 
commerce of Switzerland, Germany, Hungary, Turkey, and above all of 
Moldavia and Wallachia. But give the same power the Caucasus in addition, 
and the Black Sea will exclusively belong to it as a mare clausum, and only 
Constantinople and the Dardanelles are wanted in order to shut its door. 
The possession of the Caucasian mountains insures at once the control of 
Trebizond, and through its position with reference to the Caspian Sea, of 
the northern seaboard of Persia. 

The greedy eye of Russia has embraced at once the outlets of the Danube 
and the mountainous range of the Caucasus. There the business in hand was 
to conquer supremacy; here, to maintain it. The chains of the Caucasus 
mountains separate Southern Russia from the luxurious provinces of Geor- 

Lord Palmerston - England and Russia 

gia, Mingrelia, Imeritia and Guriel, which the Muscovite had wrested from 
the Mussulman. Thus the foot ofthe monster empire is cut off from its main 
body. The only military road winds from Mozdok to Tif lis through the narrow 
pass of Dariel, secured by a continuous chain of intrenched places, and 
exposed on both sides to eternal attacks from the hostile Caucasian tribes. 
The union of the Caucasian tribes under one military chief might even 
endanger the bordering country of the Cossacks. "The thought of the dread- 
ful consequences which a union of the hostile Caucasians under one head 
would produce in the south of Russia fills one with terror," exlaims 
Mr. Kupffer, a German who presided over the scientific commission which 
in 1829 accompanied the expedition of Gen. Emmanuel to Elbruz. 

At this very moment our attention is directed with equal anxiety to the 
banks of the Danube, where Russia has seized the two granaries of Europe, 
and to the Caucasus, where she is menaced with expulsion from Georgia. 

Her movements in both these regions have a common origin. It was by the 
treaty of Adrianople that the usurpation of Moldo-Wallachia was prepared, 
and that were founded her claims on the Caucasus. 

Art. IV of that treaty has the following stipulation: 

"All the countries situated to the north and east of the line of demarcation 
between the two empires (Russia and Turkey) toward Georgia, Imeritia and 
Guriel, as well as all the shore of the Black Sea, from the mouth of the Kuban 
as far as the port of St. Nicholas inclusively, shall remain under the domina- 
tion of Russia." 

With regard to the Danube the same treaty stipulates: 

"The frontier line will follow the course of the Danube to the mouth of 
St. George, leaving all the islands formed by the different branches in the 
possession of Russia. The right bank will remain, as formerly, in the posses- 
sion of the Ottoman Porte. It is, however, agreed, that that right bank, from 
the point where the arm of St. George departs from that of Sulina, shall 
remain uninhabited to a distance of two hours (six miles) from the river, 
and that no kind of structure shall be raised there; and in like manner on 
the islands which still remain in the possession of Russia. With the ex- 
ception of quarantines which will be there established, it will not be per- 
mitted to make any other establishment or fortification." 

Both these paragraphs, inasmuch as they secured to Russia new posses- 
sions and exclusive commercial advantages, infringe on the protocol of 
April 4,1826, drawn up by the Duke of Wellington at St. Petersburg, and the 
treaty of July 6, 1827, concluded between Russia and the other powers at 
London. The English Government, therefore, refused to recognize the treaty 
of Adrianople. The Duke of Wellington protested against it. Lord Aberdeen 
protested against it as Lord Mahon says: "In a dispatch to Lord Heytesbury, 

Karl Marx 

dated 31st October, 1829, he commented with no small dissatisfaction on 
many parts of the treaty of Adrianople, and especially noticed the stipula- 
tions respecting the islands of the Danube. He denies that that treaty has 
respected the territorial rights of sovereignty of the Porte and the condition 
and the interests of all maritime Statesinthe Mediterranean." Earl Grey said: 
"That the independence of the Porte would be sacrificed and the peace of 
Europe endangered by this being agreed to." Lord Palmerston himself, in 
his speech of March 17, 1837, informs us: "As far as the extension of the 
Russian frontier is concerned on the mouth of the Danube, the south ofthe 
Caucasus and the shores of the Black Sea, itis certainly not consistent with 
the solemn declaration made by Russia in the face of Europe previous to 
the commencement of the Turkish war." 

The eastern shores of the Black Sea, by blockading of which and cutting 
off the supply of arms and gunpowder to the north-western Circassian dis- 
tricts, Russia could alone hope to realize her claim onthe Caucasus she had 
wrested from Turkey—the shore of the Black Sea, as well as the outlets of 
the Danube, are certainly no places "where an English action could possibly 
take place," as was lamented by Lord Palmerston in the case of Cracow. By 
what mysterious contrivance then has the Muscovite, nevertheless, succeed- 
ed in blocking up the Danube, in blockading the shore of the Euxine and in 
forcing England to submit not only to the treaty of Adrianople, but at the 
same time to the violations by Russia herself of that identical treaty? 

These questions were put to the noble Viscount in the House of Commons 
on April 20, 1836. Petitions were simultaneously presented from the mer- 
chants of London, of Glasgow, and other commercial towns, against the 
fiscal regulations of Russia on the Black Sea, and her enactments and restric- 
tions, intended to interrupt English commerce on the Danube. 

There had appeared on February 7,1836, an ukase which, by virtue of the 
treaty of Adrianople, established a quarantine on one of the islands formed 
by the mouths of the Danube. In order to execute the quarantine regulations, 
Russia claimed a right of boarding and search, of levying fees and seizing 
and marching off to Odessa refractory sailors, proceeding on their voyage 
up the Danube. Before the quarantine was established, or rather before, 
under the false pretense of a quarantine, a fort and a custom-house were 
erected, the Russian authorities had thrown out feelers to ascertain whatrisk 
they would run with the British Government. Lord Durham, acting upon 
instructions received from England, remonstrated with the Russian Govern- 
ment for these hinderances to British trade. He was referred to Count 
Nessehode. Count Nessehode referred to the Governor of South Russia, and 
the Governor of South Russia again referred to the Consul at Galatz, who 
communicated withthe British Consul at Ibraila, who was instructed to send 

Lord Palmerston - England and Russia 

down the captains from whom toll had been exacted, to the mouth of the 
Danube, the scene of their injuries, in order that inquiry might be made into 
the subject, it being well known that the captains referred to were then 
in England. 

The formal ukase of Feb. 7,1836, aroused, however, the general attention 
of British merchants, since, as Mr. Stewart stated in the House of Commons 
on April 20,1836, "many ships had sailed and others were going out, to whose 
captains strict orders had been given not to submit to the right of boarding 
and search which Russia claimed. The fate of these ships must be inevitable, 

10 unless some expression of opinion was made on the part of the House. Unless 

that were done, British shipping to the amount of not less than 5,000 tons 
would be seized and marched off to Odessa, until the insolent commands 
of Russia were complied with." 

We have stated that Russia acquired the marshy islands at the mouths of 

15 the Danube, in virtue of the treaty of Adrianople, which treaty was a violation 

of that which she had previously concluded with England and the other 
powers on July 26, 1827. Her bristling the mouths of the Danube with forti- 
fications, and these fortifications with guns, was also a violation of the treaty 
of Adrianople, which expressly prohibited any fortifications to be erected 
within six miles of the river. The exacting of tolls and the obstruction of the 
navigation was a violation of the treaty of Vienna, which declared that "the 
navigation of rivers along their whole course, from the point where each of 
them became navigable to its mouth, shall be entirely free," that "the amount 
of the duties shall, in no case, exceed those now (in 1815) paid," and that 
"no increase shall take place except with the common consent of the States 
bordering on their river." Thus then, the only points on which Russia could 
plead not guilty, was an infraction of the treaty of 1827, by the treaty of 
Adrianople, an open violation by herself of the treaty of Adrianople, and an 
insolent rupture of the treaty of Vienna. 

It appeared quite impossible to wring out of Lord Palmerston any declara- 
tion whether he did or did not recognize the treaty of Adrianople. As to the 
treaty of Vienna, "he had received no official information that any thing had 
occurred which is not warranted by the treaty. When sucha statement should 
be made by the parties concerned, it should be dealt with in such manner 

as the law advisers of the Crown should deem consistent with the rights of 
the subjects of England." 
By Art. V. of the treaty of Adrianople, Russia "guarantees the prosperity 
of the Danubian Principalities and full liberty of trade for them." Now, 
Mr. Patrick Stewart proved that the Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia 
were objects of deadly jealousy to Russia, as their trade had taken a sudden 
development since 1834, as they vied with Russia's own staple production, 

Karl Marx 

as Galatz was becoming the great dépôt of all the grain of the Danube and 
driving Odessa out of the market. To this Lord Palmerston answered in these 
words: 

"If my honorable friend had been able to show, that whereas some years 
ago we had had a large and important commerce with Turkey, and that that 
commerce had by the aggression of other countries, or by the neglect of the 
government of this, dwindled down to an inconsiderable trade, then there 
might have been ground to call upon Parliament. In lieu of such an oc- 
currence, my honorable friend has shown that during the last few years the 
trade with Turkey has risen from next to nothing to a very considerable 
amount." 

"Russia obstructs the Danube navigation, because the trade of the Princi- 
palities is growing important," says Mr. Stewart. "But she didnotdo so when 
that trade was next to nothing," 
oppose Russia's recent encroachment on the Danube," says Mr. Stewart. 

answers Lord Palmerston. "You neglect to 

"But did we do so before these encroachments were ventured upon?" asks 
Lord Palmerston. His Lordship succeeded in preventing the House from 
coming to a resolution by assuring it that "there was no disposition of Her 
Majesty's Government to submit to aggressions on the part of any power, 
be that power what it may, and be it more or less strong," and by warning 
the House that "they should also cautiously abstain from anything which 
might be construed by other powers, and reasonably so, as being a provoca- 
tion on their part." 

A week after these debates had taken place in the House of Commons a 
British merchant addressed a letter to Lord Palmerston with regard to the 
Russian ukase. He was answered by the Under-Secretary at the Foreign 
Office as follows: 

"I am directed by Viscount Palmerston to acquaint you that his lordship 
has called upon the law adviser for the crown for his opinion as to the 
regulations promulgated by the Russian ukase on Feb. 7, 1836; but, in the 
meantime, Lord Palmerston directs me to acquaint you, with respect to the 
latter part of your letter, that it is the opinion of His Majesty's Government 
that no toll is justly demanded by the Russian authorities at the mouth of 
the Danube, and you have acted properly in directing your agents to refuse 
to pay it." 

The merchant on acting according to this letter was abandoned to Russia 
by the noble lord; a Russian toll, as Mr. Urquhart states, is now exacted in 
London and Liverpool by Russian Consuls on every English ship sailing for 
the Turkish ports of the Danube, and the quarantine still stands on the island 
of Leti. 

But Russia did not limit her invasion of the Danube to a quarantine estab- 

Lord Palmerston * England and Russia 

lished, to fortifications erected, and to tolls exacted. The only mouth of the 
Danube still navigable, the Sulina mouth, came into the possession of Russia 
through the treaty of Adrianople. As long as it was possessed by the Turks, 
a depth of water was kept in the channel of from 14 to 16 feet. Since it has 
been possessed by Russia, the water has become reduced to 8 feet, a depth 
wholly inadequate to the conveyance of vessels employed in the corn trade. 
Now Russia is a party to the treaty of Vienna, and that treaty stipulates in 
article 113, that "each State shall be at the expense of keeping in good repair 
the towing paths, and shall maintain the necessary works in order that no 
obstruction shall be experienced by the navigation." Russia found no better 
means for keeping the channel in a navigable state than choking up its mouth 
with an accumulation of sand and mud, and paving its bar with shipwrecks. 
To this systematic and protracted violation of the treaty of Vienna, Russia 
has added another violation of the treaty of Adrianople, which forbids the 

erecting of any establishment at the mouth of the Sulina, except for quaran- 
tine and light-house purposes, since, at her dictation, there has sprung up 
there a small Russian town, supported by the extortions, the occasion for 
which has been afforded by the delays and expenses for lighterage con- 
sequent upon the obstruction of the channel. 

"Of what use" said Lord Palmerston, on April 30,1823, "is itto dwell upon 
abstract principles with despotic governments who are accused of measuring 
right by power, and of ruling their conduct by expediency, and not by jus- 
tice?" According to his own maxim the noble Lord took good care to content 
himself with dwelling upon abstract principles with the despotic government 

of Russia. But he went further. While he assured the House on July 6,1840, 
that the freedom of the Danube was "guaranteed by the treaty of Vienna;" 
and while he lamented on July 13, 1840, that, although the occupation of 
Cracow was a violation of the treaty of Vienna, "there were no means of 
enforcing the opinion of England because Cracow was evidently a place 
where no English action could possibly take place," he two days later con- 
cluded a treaty with Russia, by virtue of which treaty, the Dardanelles were 
hermetically closed to English men-of-war during peace with Turkey, thus 
bereaving England of the only means of enforcing the treaty of Vienna, and 
transforming the Euxine into "a place, where no English action could pos- 
sibly take place." This point once obtained, he gave a sham satisfaction to 
public opinion by firing off a whole battery of papers reminding "the despotic 
government" which "measures right by power, and rules its conduct by 
expediency, and not by justice," in a very sententious and sentimental 
manner, that "Russia, when she compelled Turkey to cede to her the outlet 
of a great European river which forms the commercial highway for the 
mutual intercourse of many nations, undertook duties and responsibilities 

Karl Marx 

to other states, which she should take a pride in making good." To such a 
homily upon abstract principles, Count Nessehode answered steadily and 
flegmatically that "the subject should be carefully examined," and from time 
to time he expressed "a feeling of soreness on the part of the Imperial 
Government at the mistrust manifested as to their intentions." 

Thus, through the management of the noble Lord, things have arrived in 
1853 at the point where the navigation of the Danube had been declared 
impossible, and wheat is rotting at the mouth of the Sulina, while famine 
threatens to invade France, England and the South of Europe. Thus Russia 
has added, as The Times said, "to her other important possessions, that of 
an hon gate between the Danube and the Euxine." She has acquired the key 
of the Danube and of a bread-screw which she can put on, whenever the 
policy of Western Europe becomes obnoxious to punishment. 

The mystery, however, of Lord Palmerston's transactions with Russia as 
to her schemes on the Danube was not revealed till during the course of the 
debates on Circassia. Then it was proved by Mr. Anstey on February 23, 
1848, that "the noble Viscount's first act on coming into office (as the 
Minister of Foreign Affairs) was to accept the treaty of Adrianople,"—the 
same treaty against which the Duke of Wellington and Lord Aberdeen had 
protested. 

How this was done and how Circassia was delivered by Lord Palmerston 
to Russia, as far as he had the power to deliver it, may perhaps, form the 
subject of another article.