RUSSIAN FEELING ON THE EASTERN QUESTION.

Grey River Argus, Volume X, Issue 788, 4 February 1871, Page 1 (Supplement)

RUSSIAN FEELING ON THE EASTERN QUESTION.

The St. Petersburg correspondent of the Daily Ncivs writes as follows : — St. Petersrurg, Nov. 15. . The last two days have been quiet here, and nothing more of interest has occurred that you have not already had by telegram. The journals are occupied chiefly with discussing the articles in the foreign papers on the Russian note. They find that it is the form and tone which are chiefly complained of, and strive to show the politeness of the one and the propriety of the other. The question of principle is at present ignored. Perhaps they think enough has been said about that. They say now they will admit they have violated a treaty, and they are perfectly willing to take the consequences, if there are any, still asserting the right and propriety of their conduct. The Moscoio Gazette says : — " The calm and dignified tone of the despatch of the 19th October can have offended no one ; but were this tone even rude, would war be made on Russia for that ? It is said, besides, that Russia professes an heretical doctrine on the value of treaties. Let us admit it ; but has it ever been heard that states can make war for such or such a manner of regarding things 1 In the international sphere there is no censorship, either pre-

ventive or repressive. How, then, proceed against Russia if its appreciation of certain things is really false 1 The Treaty of Paris does not say a single word on the value of treaties in general, and it prescribes no form to the contracting parties in which to express their opinion or formulate their rights." Mr John Stuart Mill was right in saying that it was much more difficult to judge of the moral question involved in i the declaration of Russia that at first sight appears. If any of your readers were here they would at once see this. In reading over the articles in Russian journals, we meet a great deal of sophistry and much special plading, but also sound practical sense, and arguments which are hard to refute. On the other had the Russians find a considerable amount of fault with the arguments and views of the foreign press. " Why," they say, "is our conduct so heinous, when you all approved the action of Italy a few weeks ago in rejecting the September Convention the moment that France was down ? We show that the treaty of Paris was broken by the union of the Principalities against which we protested, and you say that we have no reason to complain, because that does not injure us. Is the treaty not broken all the same, whether our iuterests are particularly affected or not ? Count Beust even adds that this infraction is no reason why we should now make an attack on Turkey. But that is just what we disclaim doing." "Ah," you add, that is a fait accompli." The Russians dislike that doctrine. I was talking the other day with one of the highest officers of the Government, and he spoke of this very thing. "If a nation," he said, "by means of an intrigue and secret preparation, suddenly violates a treaty, and obtains the desired advantage, the world stares a little, but does nothing, unless the question is really worth fighting about, and that is very seldom. France, Italy, .and Prussia have acted thus, and the world now pretends to believe they were right. When we, without intrigue or subterfuge, do not break a treaty, but boldly and honestly say, ' This is unendurable, we will not keep it longer' — that is, only declare our intention of breaking it — you talk of destroying faith in treaties, of violating our plighted faith, &c. ; but we have as yet done nothing but declare our intentions — legalise them, if you wish. When we protest against an infraction of a treaty, such as the union of the Principalities, you say, 'Oh, we can do nothing, it is a fait accompli,' and so you call a congress and legalise. What a wretched subterfuge that is ! Well, now, here is a fait accompli, let England and Austria call a congress and accept it. We are quite willing for that."

Two or three others near us warmly applauded these sentiments, and one added, " It is easy to see that we have acted with perfect good faith in this matter, to satisfy our national honor, and for no warlike purpose. The stipulations of the treaty allow us 10 ships on the Black Sea, and we have actually but three ; a fleet can't be built in a day, and we prefer to build it openly and honestly." Another took a very practical view, and said : — " Three strong fellows came into my house, turned me out, and made me promise to live in the cellar. They knew well enough I should not stay there longer than I could help. Now one of them is sick, and I take the opportunity to assert my rights, and get possession of my own house. As they understood this perfectly well -when they made me promise, and have been feeling me ever since to see if my muscles were still weak, I don't see any breach of faith in what I do." " Treaties are not made to last for ever ; and the world knows that a treaty imposing humiliating conditions will be broken at the first opportunity." As you have seen by the telegrams, addresses of thanks to the Emperorare coming from all quarters. This is, I doubt not, a genuine expression of feeling, though I have been told that the hand of the Government is only too plainly visible. If this be true, it would show at least that the Government has no intention of retreating from its position, but is endeavoring to strengthen it by popular support.