The Insurrection at Madrid. The Austro-Turkish Treaty. Moldavia and Wallachia

From Marxists-en
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Author(s) Karl Marx
Written 4 July 1854


MIA-bannière.gif
First published in the New York Daily Tribune, No. 4134, July 19;
reprinted in the New York Semi-Weekly Tribune, No. 955, July 21
and the New York Weekly Tribune, No. 671, July 22, 1854
Source: Marx-Engels Collected Works, Volume 13 (pp.267-275), Progress Publishers, Moscow 1980
Collection(s): New York Tribune, The Eastern Question (Marx)
Keywords : Austria, Insurrection, Madrid, Moldova, Romania, Spain, Treaty, Turkey

This article is registered in the Notebook as "Dienstag. 4. Juli. Moldau und Walachei". It was published in abridged form by Eleanor Marx in The Eastern Question under the title "Russia, Austria, Turkey, Wallachia, and Redcliffe".

London, Tuesday, July 4, 1854

The long-expected military insurrection at Madrid has at length been accomplished under the leadership of Generals O'Donnell and Dulce[1]. The French Government journals hasten to inform us that, according to their dispatches, the Spanish Government has already overcome the danger and that the insurrection is suppressed[2]. But the Madrid correspondent of The Morning Chronicle, who gives a detailed account of the rising and communicates the proclamation of the insurgents, says that they have only withdrawn from the capital in order to join the garrison of Alcala, and that in case of Madrid remaining passive they would have no difficulty in reaching Saragossa[3]. Should the movement be more successful than the last rebellion in that town[4], the consequences would be to cause a diversion in the military action of France, to afford a subject for dissent between France and England, and probably also to affect the pending complication between Spain and the United States Government.

It appears now that the new Russian loan has not been positively contracted for by the Messrs. Hope of Amsterdam, as I was led to believe[5] from announcements made at the London and Manchester Exchanges; and that these bankers have not advanced any portion of the money to the Russian treasury. They merely undertook to bring it out at the different European Exchanges, but at no risk of their own. The success of the loan is reported to be very doubtful, and we have news that at Berlin and Frankfort it has met with very little favor. The Hamburg Senate has prohibited its official quotation, and the English diplomatic agents and Consuls, according to The Morning Chronicle, have issued warnings to British subjects not to become subscribers to a loan "intended for carrying on war against the Queen."

The intelligence of the movements of the Russian troops since the abandonment of the siege of Silistria is contradictory. The Moniteur having announced the retreat of the Russians behind the Pruth, the Vienna Presse states that there was not the slightest reason to believe in the fact of such a move[6]. It appears, on the contrary, that not even Wallachia is intended to be evacuated, General Liprandi having taken up a position at Plojesti and Kimpina, with his outposts stationed at the entrance of the Rothenthurm Pass, while the main army, retiring by Slobodzic and along the left bank of the Danube, is stated to have halted at Brailow. On the other hand, the corps of Lüders occupying the Dobrodja, has not yet abandoned the line of Trajan's Wall, and it is rut likely that, even in case of further retreat, they will surrender Matchin and Isaktsha. Fresh troops are said to be pouring into Moldavia, where it seems to be the plan of the Russians to concentrate a large force. The corps of General Panyutin has entered from Podolia, and additional resources are being drawn in from Bessarabia. The entire force of the Russians in Upper Moldavia, between Jassy, Roman and Botushani, is said to amount to 60,000; and a division of 20,000 is encamped near Kamenicz. "Paskievich," says the Ost-Deutsche Post, "has declared that in no case will he abandon the mouths of the Danube"[7]. The retreat is explained by the Russians to be only a consequence of the plague having broken out on the Higher Danube.

The movements of the Austrians are still quite undefined. The corps of Coronini is stated to have orders to embark on steamers at Orsova, and to go down the river to Giurgevo, thence to march upon Bucharest. The Corriere Italiano, an Austrian Government organ, announces that the object of this move is only to take up a neutral position in Wallachia[8], and yet at the same time we hear that the Austrian "ultimatum" has been declined by Russia.

"The Russian Emperor," says the dispatch published in The Morning Chronicle, "in his answer to the Austrian summons, expresses his readiness to negotiate with the four powers on all points, except on the privileges of the Christian subjects of the Sultan. On this subject he will only treat directly with the Porte, and he refuses to admit the interference of the four powers. He also refuses to give any guarantees for the evacuation of the Principalities."[9]

Now, it is' quite possible that in consequence of this refusal, a sham war between Austria and Russia may occur, to end in some such famous rencontre[10] as the remarkable affair at Bronzell[11], which ended the sham war between Austria and Prussia in 1850, while the newspapers were yet lost in conjectures on the terrible eventualities of that "middle European crisis." In lieu of similar speculations on the possible meaning of Austria's present policy, we shall betake ourselves to the fact of the Austro-Turkish treaty of June 14, which is now fully and officially made known.[12]

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

By the first article of the treaty,

"the Emperor of Austria undertakes to exhaust every means of negotiation and others, to obtain the evacuation of the Danubian Principalities by the foreign army now occupying them, and even to employ, in case of need, the number of troops necessary to attain that end."

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

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

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

By virtue of Article 3,

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

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

According to Article 4,

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

Article 5 adds,

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

By the former of these articles Austria reserves to herself the right to an arrangement with Russia based simply on the status quo, as embodied in the Vienna note[13]. By the latter Austria promises not to withdraw her troops after an arrangement between herself and Russia, but only after the conclusion of a treaty between Russia and Turkey. The "material guaranty," no longer safe in the direct keeping of Russia, is transferred to Austria, and Austria empowered to hold it for her with the consent of the Porte—until Turkey shall have adhered to the "accommodation between the two Imperial Courts."

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

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

The claims of the Porte to the suzerainty of Moldo-Wallachia are founded on the treaties of 1393, 1460 and 1511. The treaty concluded in 1393 between Wallachia and Turkey 197 contains the following articles:

"Art. I. We, Bayazet, etc. determine, by our extreme condescendence toward Wallachia, which has made its submission to our invincible Empire, with its reigning Prince[14], that this country is to continue to govern itself by its own laws, and that the Prince of Wallachia shall have the entire liberty of declaring war or making peace with his neighbors, how and when it may please him.

"Art. III. The Princes (Christians) will be elected by the Metropolitans and Boyards.

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

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

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

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

"Art. III. The Voyvodes will continue to be elected by the Metropolitan Archbishop, the Bishops and Boyards, and the election will be recognized by the Porte.

"Art. IV. The Wallachian nation will continue to enjoy the free exercise of its own laws, and the Voyvodes will have the right of life and death over their subjects, as also that of making peace or war, without being subjected for any of their acts to any kind of responsibility toward the Sublime Porte."[15]

The third treaty is that of 1511 in which Moldavia acknowledged the suzerainty of the Porte, obtaining even better conditions in exchange than Wallachia had obtained.

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

"The Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia, having placed themselves by capitulation under the suzerainty of the Sublime Porte, and Russia having warranted their prosperity(!), it is understood that they continue to enjoy all those privileges and immunities which have been granted to them in virtue of their capitulation."[16]

It follows, then, from the above-cited capitulations, which, not having been superseded by any subsequent treaty, still remain in vigor, that the Principalities form two sovereign States under the suzerainty of the Porte, to which they pay a tribute on the condition that the Porte shall defend them against every and any external enemy, and not interfere at all in their internal administration. So far from being entitled to surrender Wallachia to foreign occupation, the Turks themselves are forbidden from entering Wallachia without an ostensible motive. Nay, more: Since the Turks have thus violated their capitulations with the Wallachians and forfeited the claims of suzerainty, the Russians might even, when appealed to by the Wallachians, found their right of driving the Austrians out of the Principalities on the show of broken treaties. And this would be by no means surprising, as it has been the constant policy of Russia to encourage, and even oblige the Turks to violate the rights of the Wallachians, so as to produce hostilities between them, and create for herself a pretext for intervention. What happened, for instance in 1848?[17] Some Boyards in the spring of that year had presented a petition to the Hospodar of Moldavia[18], demanding certain reforms, which request was, by the influence of the Russian Consul[19], not only refused but caused its authors to be thrown into prison. The commotion produced by this act furnished the Russians with a pretext to cross the frontier, on June 25, and to march upon Jassy. Simultaneously the Hospodar of Wallachia[20], like the other continental governments, granted a number of reforms demanded by the Liberal party of the Wallachian Boyards. This was on June 23. It is scarcely necessary to remark that these reforms infringed in no way upon the suzerainty of the Porte. But they happened to destroy entirely all the influence Russia had obtained through the fundamental law decreed during their occupation of 1829[21], which the reforms abolished. The constitution replacing it suppressed serfdom, and a portion of the land occupied by the peasant was ceded to him as property, while the landlord was to be indemnified by the State for the land given up and for the loss of his peasant's labor[22]. The reigning hospodar was then induced by the Russians to remove, and a Provisional Government took up the management of the public affairs. The Porte which, as we have shown, had no right to interfere in the internal affairs of the Principalities, and had omitted to protest against the Russian entrance into Moldavia, dispatched Soliman Pasha with a Turkish army into Wallachia, and published a very threatening address of the Sultan to the inhabitants[23], the measures of the Divan being taken of course under the influence of Russia. The Wallachians went out to meet the Pasha and the Turks, and fraternised with them. An agreement was made that the Provisional Government should be replaced by a Lieutenance Princière, composed at first of six, and afterward of three members. This Government was then recognized by the Pasha, and at the Pasha's desire, by the foreign Consuls. A modification was introduced into the new constitution after which that also was confirmed by the Sultan.

Meanwhile the Russian Government fulminated against the Wallachian people in manifestoes addressed to Europe, wherein they were charged to have established a republic, and proclaimed communism[24]. On the 1st August, 1848, a large Russian force crossed the Pruth on its march to Bucharest. Suddenly Soliman Pasha was recalled by the Porte; the Sultan refused to receive the Wallachian deputies who had gone to Constantinople in answer to his own invitation; and on September 25, Fuad Effendi, at the head of a Turkish army, presented himself before Bucharest, declaring that he had only come to deprive Russia of all pretext for entering the Principality. Confiding in the word of the Turks, more than 100,000 inhabitants went out from Bucharest and the surrounding country, unarmed, in festive garments, and with the clergy at their head to welcome them. Fuad Effendi then invited them to send a deputation to his camp, so that he might communicate to them his instructions.

"No sooner," says M. Bratiano in his account of these events, "no sooner did the deputation present themselves before Fuad Effendi, than they were made prisoners, and at the same time the Turkish army precipitated itself in a forced march upon Bucharest, trampling down under the hoofs of his cavalry the peaceful inhabitants who had gone out to meet the Turks as friends, tearing down their banners, destroying their crosses, bombarding a military barrack which it found on its passage, as well as a whole quarter of the town, firing grape-shot at the Wallachian soldiers who occupied those barracks, inducing them to capitulate and lay down their arms, putting to death the sick, and after having reached the town giving themselves up to pillage, massacre and other horrible deeds!"[25]

It was here that Gen. Duhamel, the Russian Commissioner, accompanied, and in fact commanded the Turkish army. He was followed by the Russian army, and the result was the treaty of Balta Liman[26], i.e. among other things the restoration of the Russian fundamental law, or statato which is nothing else than the status quo as to which Austria engages [to] reduce Wallachia.

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

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

"that the Russian troops entered Moldavia without any orders from the Cabinet of St. Petersburg, that they only aimed at the maintenance or establishment of order, that they would be withdrawn when the occasion had ceased, that the entry was on the authority of the Hospodar, and there was no disposition for the acquisition of territory."[27]

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

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

Lastly, at the time when the combined Russo-Turkish occupation in 1848 had assumed the character of a reign of terror, and when Magheru, the commander of the Wallachian irregulars alone resisted, he was induced to withdraw beyond the Carpathian mountains "by the persuasion of the British Consul-General[28], who represented to him that the presence of his army would paralyze the action of diplomacy, but that his country would soon be righted."[29]

  1. ↑ This refers to a military coup (pronunciamento) in Madrid on June 28, 1854. Since the spring of 1854 the Spanish people's dissatisfaction with their great economic hardships and with their reactionary government had been growing stronger; it intensified especially after the dissolution of the Cortes which tried to oppose the government decree that taxes must be paid six months in advance. The leaders of the pronunciamento, generals O'Donnell and Dulce, who pursued personal aims in the overthrow of the Sartorius dictatorship in Spain, were compelled to promise certain bourgeois tax reforms. They also promised to do away with the camarilla, to convene the Cortes, form a national militia and introduce other changes. Participation of the popular masses in the struggle led to the bourgeois revolution of 1854-56, which in 1854 again brought to power the Progresista Party headed by Espartero (*). Frightened by the activity of the broad masses, however, the bourgeoisie sided with the counter-revolution, and in 1856 extreme reactionaries returned to power. (*) The liberal-bourgeois Progresista party was formed in the 1830s. The Progresistas found support among the urban middle and petty bourgeoisie, intellectuals and some officers. Their principal demand was restriction of the power of the monarchy.
  2. ↑ Report from Bayonne of July 3, 1854. Le Moniteur universel, No. 185, July 4, 1854.—Ed.
  3. ↑ Report from Madrid of June 28. The Morning Chronicle, No. 27309, July 4, 1854.—Ed.
  4. ↑ Marx presumably has in mind the revolt of the Saragossa garrison in February 1854.
  5. ↑ See State of The Russian War (June 1854) .—Ed.
  6. ↑ The report of Die Presse is given according to Le Moniteur universel, No. 184,, July 3, 1854.—Ed.
  7. ↑ The Ost-Deutsche Post is quoted according to the Journal des Débats, June 29, 1854.—Ed.
  8. ↑ The Corriere Italiano statement is given as reprinted in Le Moniteur universel, No. 184, July 3, 1854.—Ed.
  9. ↑ Telegraphic dispatch from Berlin. The Morning Chronicle, No. 27309, July 4, 1854.—Ed.
  10. ↑ Duel.—Ed.
  11. ↑ The remarkable affair at Bronzell—an ironical description of an insignificant clash between Prussian and Austrian detachments on November 8, 1850 in the electorate of Hesse-Cassel (Kurhessen). Prussia and Austria, contending for supremacy in Germany, claimed the right to interfere in the internal affairs of Hesse-Cassel to suppress the mounting constitutional movement against the elector Frederick William I and his reactionary ministers. In this conflict with Austria, which received diplomatic support from the Russian Emperor, Nicholas I, Prussia had to yield and allow Austria to carry out a punitive expedition in Hesse-Cassel. In May and October 1850 conferences in which Austria, Prussia and Russia took part were held in Warsaw on the initiative of the Russian Emperor. They were called in connection with the growing tension in the struggle between Austria and Prussia over supremacy in Germany. Acting as arbiter, the Russian Emperor made Prussia renounce her intention of achieving political unification of the German states under her aegis. The protocol mentioned by Marx is: "Procès-verbal des conférences tenues à Varsovie entre les ministres présidents d'Autriche et de Prusse pour arriver à l'amiable à une solution de la question de la constitution allemande. Signé à Varsovie, le 28 octobre 1850." In 1851 this protocol was published by the Prussian Government in the pamphlet Von Warschau bis Olmütz.
  12. ↑ The text of the treaty is given according to the report of The Times correspondent in Paris of June 30, 1854. The Times, No. 21783, July 3, 1854.—Ed.
  13. ↑ In 1853 and 1854 the Ambassadors of Britain, France and Prussia and the Austrian Foreign Minister Buol held a number of conferences in Vienna. The first, in July 1853, to which the Russian Ambassador was also invited but which he refused to attend, was officially aimed at mediation between Russia and Turkey in view of the worsening relations between them. The words "first Vienna Note" refer to the draft agreement between Russia and Turkey drawn up by Buol and concluded at the end of July 1853. It obliged the Sultan to abide by the Kuchuk-Kainardji (1774) (*) and the Adrianople (1829) (See note 16) treaties on the rights and privileges of the Orthodox Church in the Ottoman Empire. The Turkish Sultan Abdul Mejid agreed to sign the Note but demanded a number of changes and reservations, which the Russian Government found unacceptable. (*) The treaty of Kuchuk-Kainardji was concluded between Russia and Turkey on July 21, 1774. Russia got territories on the northern shore of the Black Sea between the South Bug and the Dnieper with the fortress of Kinburn, and also Azov, Kerch and Yenikale and secured recognition of the Crimea's independence. Russian merchantmen were granted the right of free passage through the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles. The treaty obliged the Sultan to grant a number of privileges to the Orthodox Church; Article 14 in particular provided for the building of an Orthodox Church in Constantinople.
  14. ↑ Mircea the Old.—Ed.
  15. ↑ Marx may here be quoting the treaty of 1460 between Wallachia and Turkey according to D. Bratiano's Documents Concerning the Question of the Danubian Principalities.
  16. ↑ Article V of the treaty is given by Marx according to The Russians in Moldavia and Wallachia. The peace treaty of Adrianople was concluded by Turkey and Russia in September 1829, at the end of the war of 1828-29. Under it Russia obtained the islands in the mouth of the Danube and a considerable part of the eastern coast of the Black Sea south of the Kuban estuary. Turkey was obliged to recognise the autonomy of the Danubian Principalities, Moldavia and Wallachia and grant them the right to elect hospodars (rulers) independently. Russia was to guarantee this autonomy, which was tantamount to establishing a Russian protectorate over the Principalities. The Turkish Government also pledged to guarantee the autonomy of Greece and Serbia.
  17. ↑ The revolutionary events of 1848 in Moldavia and Wallachia are described by Marx mainly on the basis of the books: The Russians in Moldavia and Wallachia and J. Héliade Radulesco's Mémoires sur l'Histoire de la Régénération roumaine ou sur les Événements de 1848 accomplis en Valachie, Paris, 1851. The author of the second book, J. Héliade Radulesco, took part in the events, was a member of the provisional government known for his pro-Turkish leanings, and during the revolution pursued a compromise policy in respect of the Turkish Government and the Wallachian boyars.
  18. ↑ Sturdza.—Ed.
  19. ↑ Kotzebue.—Ed.
  20. ↑ George Bibesco.—Ed.
  21. ↑ Under Article V of the Adrianople treaty (see Note 199↑) Moldavia and Wallachia were to be occupied by the Russian troops until Turkey paid indemnities (the troops were withdrawn in 1834). Turkey pledged to recognise the autonomy of the Danubian Principalities and grant them the right to elect hospodars (rulers) independently. In 1831-32, on the basis of a project drafted by the Tsarist Government, the assemblies of boyars and clergy in Wallachia and Moldavia adopted "organic regulations" which granted legislative powers in each principality to an assembly elected by big landowners and executive powers to hospodars elected for life by representatives of the landowners, clergy and towns. The "regulations" planned a number of bourgeois reforms: annulled internal customs, introduced free trade, separated judiciary from administrative power, allowed the transfer of peasants to new owners, and prohibited torture. But the preservation of the former feudal order, including serfdom, and the concentration of political power in the Principalities in the hands of the big landowners and boyars, led the progressive sections to regard the "regulations" as a symbol of feudal stagnation.
  22. ↑ In speaking about the Constitution, Marx had in mind the Izlaz programme, Point 13 of which provided for the abolition of feudal duties of the peasants. The programme was adopted in the village of Izlaz on June 9 (21), 1848. In the book by Radulesco it was entitled "Au nom du Peuple roumain".
  23. ↑ This refers to Soliman Pasha's letter of July 31, 1848.—Ed.
  24. ↑ Marx obtained this information from The Russians in Moldavia and Wallachia; the reference is presumably to "Circulaire adressée par le comte de Nesselrode, ministre des affaires étrangères de l'Empereur de toutes les Russies, aux Missions de Russie près les cours d'Europe. En date de St.-Pétersbourg 19 juillet/1 août 1848."
  25. ↑ D. Bratiano, Documents Concerning the Question of the Danubian Principalities, pp. 10-11.—Ed.
  26. ↑ The Balta Liman treaty (convention) was concluded by Russia and Turkey on May 1 (April 19), 1849 in view of the presence of their troops in Moldavia and Wallachia where they had been sent to suppress the revolutionary movement. According to the Convention the occupying regime was to continue until the danger of revolution was completely removed (foreign troops were withdrawn from the Principalities in 1851); provisionally hospodars were to be appointed by the Sultan in concert with the Tsar, and a number of measures were envisaged in the event of a new revolution. "Organic regulations" were re-introduced.
  27. ↑ Lord Palmerston's speech in the House of Commons on September 1, 1848, is cited from the book: The Russians in Moldavia and Wallachia, p. 17.—Ed.
  28. ↑ Colquhoun.—Ed.
  29. ↑ On September 28 (October 10), 1848, on the occasion of the Wallachian revolutionary troops being disbanded, their commander Georgiu Magheru (Maghiero) wrote three documents: Réponse à la lettre du consul anglais; Protestation de Maghiero adressée aux représentants des puissances de l'Europe; La Lettre à Fuad-Effendi. The texts of these documents are given in the book by Radulesco; the quotation cited by Marx partly conveys their contents.
Retrieved from "https://wikirouge.net/texts/en/w/index.php?title=The_Insurrection_at_Madrid._The_Austro-Turkish_Treaty._Moldavia_and_Wallachia&oldid=92366"