་ sion of Russia followed quickly thereon.* But in 1854 it was quite another thing. The commerce of Russia would not simply have been arrested for the time, but extinguished in the future. Other sources would have been open, and no more ships would have made their appearance in the Baltic or Black Sea. The commerce of Russia is not a natural, but a factitious commerce, which has been created by her diplomacy, which exerts itself to keep down the productions or embarrass the exchanges of the other countries who compete with her in raw produce. For her, therefore, it was existence which was at stake, and which depended on "the Order in Council" of the 28th of March. By that Order, in escaping from this terrible peril, she became the furnisher of England, who was not slow to legalise direct commerce with her, and to buy from her on account of the Government.+ The English merchants carrying on the commerce of the Baltic beset poor Lord CLARENDON in order to explain to him that the war would be interminable, and must end disastrously if this system, which to them was incomprehensible, were not put a stop to; English merchandise did not go to Russia, so that Russian produce was paid for in gold; and the "Bankers' Circular" estimates the amount received by her from the foreigner at fifty millions sterling. The Russian troops on entering the Danubian Principalities, found there an enormous accumulation of cereals, the rapid increase of which had necessitated the war in order to save her own exportations. They consumed it on the spot. The spoil drawn from these unhappy provinces has been calculated at 4,800,000l. England, notwithstanding the war, continued to pay the RussoDutch Loan, the payment of which had been accorded for the purpose of engaging Russia not to disturb the Treaties of 1815. It is said that she capitalised this revenue, and that from such source the cost of invading the Turkish territory was defrayed. The expenses of the war were for her a trifle. What others lose or expend is for her a gain. France, England, Sardinia, and Turkey expended 200,000,000l. and 250,000 men, with the result of having captured the town but not the port of Sebastopol. The picture which I have just drawn might appear not to belong to reality. I cannot say I cannot say to you "Circumspice" because for us nothing is done all that happens is only news. One drives away the other, and "the event of the day before yesterday is the thing that It does not appear that there were any operations, even of privateers, in the so-called war with Russia of 1807. Everything in the Declaration (drawn up by Mr. Canning), in the writings of Sir Robert Adair, and in the Treaty of Peace, agrees with this supposition. That Treaty was signed on the July, 1812. Russia had, therefore, maintained a nominal war of five years with England-a thing impossible if the war had been a reality. The argument in the text is very much strengthened by the bringing out of this unparalleled event -a war of five years, in which the State which declared war did not dare to commit a hostile act, and in which the State against which war was declared forbore to fight.-ED. D. R. The Order in Council of the 15th of April, 1854, permits" the subjects of Her Majesty," as also the subjects of every neutral or friendly State, notwithstanding the hostilities with Russia, to traffic freely with all ports not blockaded." They had in 1852 exported to England alone one million and a half quarters. M. Joanesco calculated that an advance in price of 10 per cent. would double the exportation. But since 1853 they have never been tranquil, thanks to England and France. Testimony of Messrs. Weguelin, Mitchell, Phillimore, and Collier. 33 " is most unknown to-day" (GUIZOT). This follows as a matter of course; for no one has received the charge of examining the affairs of nations judicially; a thing which was and is very easy, only you have not thought of it, and no one has told you of it. I am, however, about to convince you that this is neither an ingenious romance nor an evil dream, by citing some words uttered at the very time by men of mark, in presence of the guilty actors, who had not a single word to offer in their defence. Mr. WEGUELIN said on the occasion of his election for Southampton, "I headed a deputation of thirty or forty merchants in the shipping trade with Russia, who waited upon Lords CLARENDON "and GRANVILLE, in order to recommend the Government to stop. "the trade with Russia. We told them that such a course, would do "more to bring the war to a termination than the proceedings of any army; they would cripple their resources. The ministers replied that they were satisfied with the correctness of our reasons, "but could not possibly take it upon themselves to quarrel with "Prussia; they could not afford to go to war with Prussia." Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE said in the House of Commons on the 4th of July, 1854, "If the principle is to be adopted, that being at war you ought not to do the enemy all the mischief you can, and while carrying on war to allow him in a great measure to enjoy advantages "of peace, you had better disband your armies, recall your ships, and "lower your flag." Mr. MITCHELL, one of the principal Russia merchants, said also in the House of Commons on the same day, "Russia exports produce "annually to the amount of from 12,000,000l. to 15,000,000l. sterling, a large portion of which goes directly in the shape of revenue to "the Great Russian landholders. If, therefore, you destroyed that "outlet for their produce, there could be no question that its effect "would be to deprive the only class, except the Emperor himself, "which had any influence upon the Government of this country, of "their revenue. The only way of proceeding effectually was to stop "the trade of the country." 66 .... Mr. (now Sir ROBERT) COLLIER, on the 5th of September, 1855, said, in the House of Commons: "It has been said truly that we are "not a great military Power, and that the country has not a great "standing army, but that we have fleets which, if they cannot de"stroy the forts and fleets of Russia, can, at least, blockade every port "that Power possesses. . . . At the outbreak of the war the rouble "fell from par 38 pence to 32 pence, and it was confidently anticipated that before the war had lasted many months it would fall "much lower, that a serious financial crisis would overtake the Emperor, that ruin and poverty would fall upon the landholders, and "that national bankruptcy must ensue. .... That our efforts have "not met with the desired result is certain, but, indeed, the reverse. "So far from our having blockaded the principal ports, the exports "from that Empire have been greater than ever. The whole case may be summed up in the statement that Russian commerce has not been injured, that 10,000,000l. of English money, instead of 66 "11,000,000l., the ordinary amount, has been paid to her, and that "the rouble, which had declined to 32 pence, has risen to par." In a commercial circular, Messieurs SMITH and CHARLES say: “The announcement of the stoppage in transitu of the Russian commerce, which would be the wisest and most philosophic decision "that could be adopted, would be received with universal satisfaction, "because it would put an end to the war by preventing the Czar "from being supplied with English capital, and by exciting a uni"versal animosity against the war among his subjects." October 21, 1854. Would it be believed that there is in Europe a single man who is ignorant that Russian commerce was not stopped? Would it be believed that there is a single man who believes that it was stopped? Would it be believed that a publicist, who makes it his duty to write a history of that war, has come to the latter conclusion, and that he has published it to the world, after having been crowned by that very same Institute before which M. DROUYN DE LHUYS presented himself with his memoir in hand? I put these questions, because at the moment when I was occupied with translating the passages which you have just read, a work was sent to me through the post which contain this astounding and incredible proposition. The title of it is "Contemporaneous Wars," by M. PAUL BEAULIEU, and it is published under the auspices of "The International League of Peace." In good truth PETER THE GREAT had reason to say that Europe was entering on its second childhood, and he was right in basing on this his project of universal dominion. 66 In the preface to the English edition it is said that this Association proposes to substitute for the sword international arbitration, to "decide the differences between nations," and the author relies on the number of killed and dead, and the amount of expenditure incurred in the Crimean War, to demonstrate the necessity of this arbitration. The poor idiots do not know, they cannot see, that this Crimean War was the result of an arbitration (the Conferences of Vienna), and that it terminated by inaugurating, at the Congress of the Peace, this new maxim of arbitration. See to what a pitch we have arrived when the judicial process for ascertaining facts before acting has been abolished! The result can only be brutality in acts and imbecility in mind. Such a people cannot, and ought not to, live. They can only do so by acknowledging in themselves the necessity of preventing decay, and by correcting themselves. This happy disposition has been developed in France; but, in order for it to bear fruit, that nation must learn in what it has failed. It is in view of this possibility, and of the return of France by these means to the path of law in the management of affairs, that I have abandoned the reticence which I have hitherto observed on these matters, and that I have here told all that I know without reserve. I am, Sir, Your most obedient Servant, DAVID URQUHART. DOCUMENTS FOR REFERENCE. RESTORATION OF THE MARITIME POWER OF FRANCE. EXTRACT FROM THE MEMORIAL OF THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEES, SIGNED ON THE 4TH OF SEPTEMBER, 1870, AND ADDRESSED TO THE EMPEROR OF THE FRENCH; AND SINCE TRANSMITTED TO M. JULES FAVRE. We, therefore, beg to point out the neglect by Your Majesty of a most important means of action against the enemy of France in not sequestrating her property placed within reach of seizure as being in passage over the sea. Thousands of Frenchmen are slaughtered by an enemy who is devastating France, and is about to reduce the neighbourhood of the capital to a desert. Yet that enemy is allowed to carry on his trade in peace under a neutral flag. We are told that this abnegation of maritime power is to assimilate war on sea to war on land where private property is respected. Private property is not respected by the Prussians in France. The cause assigned for sparing Prussia at sea is the Declaration of Paris, which forbids the seizure of enemy's goods in neutral vessels, a practice constantly followed by France as well as England till the Crimean War in 1854. But what is the Declaration of Paris? England is not bound by it, for even supposing that any State could alter the Law of Nations, the Conference at Paris was not competent to make laws for Englishmen. That can only be done by the QUEEN and Parliament. The Queen of ENGLAND never gave any authority to Lord CLARENDON to sign the Declaration of Paris. She has never ratified it. Not one of Her Majesty's Servants has ever dared to ask for an Act of Parliament to sanction this change in the Laws of England. But both Lord CLARENDON and that Minister of your Majesty who was most active in procuring the adoption of the principles of the Declaration of Paris at the commencement of the Crimean War, M. DROUYN DE LHUYS, have sanctioned the violation of the Declaration of Paris. For that Declaration says, "Privateering is and remains abolished." Yet both M. DROUYN DE LHUYS and Lord CLARENDON have sanctioned the use of privateers by Chile in her war against Spain. Chile had adhered to the Declaration of Paris. If France were at war with England, and with England alone, the prohibition to seize enemy's goods in neutral vessels would indeed be as useful to France as it now is to Prussia; for her commerce being safe under the neutral flag, her whole navy and mercantile marine could be employed in the invasion of England, which, not being a military Power of the first class, could be overpowered by numbers. But if France were at war with England, it does not follow that England would consent like France at this moment to forego the use of her naval means for the sake of a fraudulent agreement to which she has never been asked to consent. EXTRACT FROM "LA DIPLOMATIE DU SECOND EMPIRE ET CELLE DU 4 SEPTEMBRE, 1870," BY EUGENE POUJADE. PARIS: SANDOZ AND FISCHBACHER. But it is principally to our naval forces that we would awaken all the attention of our Government. A Greek poet said to his fellow-countrymen, "Above all things, maintain peace in the waters that wash your coasts;" so we say to our Government, "Above all things render yourselves formidable at sea, everywhere, in the Mediterranean, on the ocean, and wherever your flag can float." Do not depend too much on ironclads and monitors; recollect the wretched figure our fleet made during the late war. But resume, without hesitation, a powerful arm which perfidious councils have induced you to lay aside. If it has been easy for Russia to erase from the Treaty of Paris the clause which was disagreeable to her, your withdrawal cannot be refused from one which is actual death to your maritime power, as it is to that of Great Britain. Boldly restore privateering; prepare to renew, in case of need, the exploits of DUGUAY-TROUIN, and SURCOUF, and to destroy the commerce of your enemies wherever you meet it. After the atrocious violations by Prussia of the Law of Nations on land, return at once to the ancient Law of Nations with regard to the sea: the more so, since the Declaration of Paris has never been wholly respected, for Russia has violated it in the Black Sea, and France and England have done so with respect to the United States and Chili. It would be too long to instance here all the violations of it that have been committed; but these facts are sufficient to show that France has it in her power to free herself from a chain which she gratuitously imposed on herself, and which has diminished her strength, and that of her ancient ally by one half. We may be sure that noble England, not the England of a GLADSTONE and a GRANVILLE, but true England, will applaud the manly resolution of France, and that by the very act of her having recovered her action and the use of all her strength, France will have advanced more than half-way on the course which she has to take for resuming her rank in the world. The re-establishment, pure and simple, of privateering by France, or, in other words, the announcement, that she liberates herself from the Declaration of Paris, would be equivalent to a revival of an intimate effective alliance with Great Britain, as it would be the best and the only practical answer at the present time to the interviews of Gastein and Salzbourg. Lord NELSON, speaking in the House of Lords in 1801, on the subject of the Armed Neutrality, and of the principle" free ships make free goods,' which it sought to impose, exclaimed, "A proposition so monstrous in itself, so contrary to the Law of Nations, and so injurious to the maritime interests of this country, that if the maintenance of it had been persisted in, it would have been our duty never to have ceased war with those Powers whilst a single man, a single shilling, or a single drop of blood remained in the country." The maritime strength of a country has this reassuring character, that it is of an opposite character to that of large permanent land armies, especially those which to-day on the European Continent, and particularly in Germany, Austria, and Russia, threaten the peace of the world; it is essentially a defensive force; it is calculated for the protection of the coasts and of commerce on the vast plains of the ocean, but it can also become a terrible instrument for ruining the countries which should again seek to crush us. We have the firm hope that great destinies are in the future promised to the French navy, and that henceforth England, taught by events and enlightened as to her destiny, will not envy its triumphs. Happy will those be who shall have it in their power one day to lavish for France in the ranks of her armies and on her fleets the treasures of their youth and of their noble blood! Nothing will equal the recompense they will receive, for it will be France, the most beautiful and noble of nations, who will say, to those who will have restored her to herself, what Don DIEGO said to the CID: Come kiss ye this cheek and remember the place |