PROPOSED PARTITION OF TURKEY.
“It is now admitted as a settled fact, that Turkey is to fall, sooner or later; and the question, how will the territory be disposed of, becomes a subject of anxiety for the statesmen of most countries. Our own statesmen do not appear at all provided for the contingency, though it is not unforseen. Lord John Russell speaks of the event as calculated to occasion ‘a war in Europe,’ through the pretensions which a certain potentate will put forth, and which would be incompatible with the interests of the other states, or with ‘the balance of power’ in Europe. It is understood that this apprehension points at Russia. The Journal des Débats speaks of the same event as certain, and draws attention to a very curious memoir recently published in the Augsburg Gazette, although written so long ago as February, 1850, three years back. Whatever may be the authorship of the paper, it evidently speaks Austrian sentiments, and, as our French contemporary remarks, it casts no untimely light on the recent movements of Francis Joseph in Turkey.
“The memoir represents that the circumstances have changed with Turkey since 1815, and even since 1840-1, when it was the joint resolution of Europe that Turkey should be maintained. The victory of Austrian and Russian arms in Hungary has altered the relations of races, and has established the predominancy of the Sclaves. The revolutionists in 1848 contemplated a federation, under German and Magyar influences, which should open the path of commerce to the Black Sea; but the same end can now be better attained by a readjustment which shall elevate the Sclaves of Turkey to their true position. The population of Turkey comprises 11,500,000 Christians (with a very slight admixture of Jews), and 2,900,000 Mussulmans. The status quo is no longer maintainable. Of the Christian territory Austria and Russia are the ‘heirs;’ and while Servia and Macedonia may go to Austria, with Salonica, the rest may fall to Russia, with Constantinople and the Dardanelles. Such are the views put forth in the Austrian Memoir; and a magnificent scheme of railways and colonisation is sketched out, which shall render this region a mine of wealth for Austria and Russia, and for commerce in general. The coincidence of this Memoir with the actual proceedings of Turkey, its publication in the Augsburg Gazette, and the suggestion that Austria and Russia, ceasing their rivalry, should divide that which each can prevent the other from taking to itself entirely, impart to this Note a special interest at the present day.
“The Journal des Débats remarks the air of ‘discouragement’ which characterised Lord John Russell’s speech last week in reply to Lord Dudley Stuart’s question. In 1840 England took arms to reduce Mohammed Ali, in order to sustain the Porte, and was all fire to defend ‘the integrity of the Ottoman Empire;’ even in 1850, when the Sultan was menaced by Austria and Russia, an English fleet advanced into the Dardanelles to defend him, violating a treaty for the purpose; but now, says our Parisian contemporary, that article of faith has become no more than a question of time, and Lord John Russell guarantees the duration of peace only for a little while.
“Thus in Vienna, in Paris, and in London, the extinction of the Ottoman Empire is set down as an event to be anticipated at no distant date; but as the Parisian writer says, the ‘annexation’ of Constantinople is an European question, and all precedents since 1815—Greece, Belgium, the Danish succession, &c. —dictate the rule, that such new dispositions must be effected by the joint consent of all Europe.
“In form this last averment is correct; in spirit and true force it presents but half the truth. It is true, as the Note represents, that 20,000 men stationed at the Bosphorus could better sustain the power of Russia in Southern Europe than 100,000 on the mouth of the Danube; it is not less true that the same effective guard could close the Dardanelles against European trade, cut off England and her 3,000,000 L. of commerce from Trebisond, and destroy the commerce that a million of pushing Greeks are carrying on as our middlemen—taking our goods and supplying us with grain. Austria, who must play second to Russia, may find it compatible with her judgment to give the South-eastern gate of Europe to Russia, who already possesses the North-eastern; but how would Western Europe consent? Already Russia is intriguing to ‘annex’ Sweden and Norway, and to reduce Denmark to the position of a vassal, thus gaining the North-western gate; her next step would be to aim at the Pillars of Hercules, and to strive for possession of the fourth gate. But even short of that she would not long hence, have it in her power to give or to withhold from Western Europe, the trade of the Baltic and of the Euxine, making the ports of Northern Germany await her pleasure, and holding the keys of the great granaries of Europe, from Dantzig to Odessa.
“All these ulterior consequences are involved, and not remotely in the proposal of the Memoir to recognise Austria and Russia as the ‘heirs’ of Turkey; and it is for Englishmen to say whether they will passively witness a progressive assault, not only upon the liberties, but upon the commerce of the West. We do not perceive in Lord John Russell’s language that air of ‘discouragement’ which the French writer imagines—rather the reverse. We suppose that the leader of the House of Commons spoke under a perhaps overweening sense of the unpopularity which has clung amid our trading classes to the bare idea of ‘a war in Europe;’ but even the utterance of the words is an advance in the direction of boldness; and now that trade itself is manifestly at stake, the timidity of the trading spirit may be overcome; for the timidest of creatures will be bold in defence of that which it loves.
“The one doubtful point to us in Lord John Russell’s suggestive fragment of an explanation, is the apparent reliance on ‘France,’ meaning Napoleon the Third. Most assuredly, in the event of an European war, that personage would take the side that appeared most likely to win; and as England is so hesitating in the approach to war, at the commencement he might be most attracted by boastful offers of alliance from Austria and Russia.
“If England possess a man equal to her fame and to the juncture, she will find a bold position the easiest and the safest. There are other parties to be consulted besides the two great Emperors, who profess to be the ‘heirs’ of the monarch they are going to destroy. If England perseveres as she has done, in sticking to red tape and treaties, while negotiating with powers that uphold red tape and treaties for their own ends, and use arms and force to break these treaties when they please, she will merely give up Turkey to the ‘heirs’ who seek to consummate their inheritance à la Macbeth. But if she desires to keep open the South-eastern gate of Europe, there is still a way, though there is no time to be lost. Russia and Austria have been busy in cajoling the Servians and Montenegrins, the Bosniacs and Wallacs; and England seems to have retreated from communication with those peoples; while France is attitudinising at Constantinople, or turning her attention, for her own ends, towards the southern shores of the Euzine. But the Sclaves of Turkey still have a will of their own; and if a powerful voice asked them, ‘Will you be free and independent?’ we believe that they would rise up, in valley and mountain, and would be a federal nation, as bold to assert their independence as the Circassians. The Federation of the Danube has all but existed: if it did, the question of the Dardanelles would be solved, and the path of English commerce would be free to Northern Asia and to India.”—The Leader.
* * *
