TURKEY—ENGLAND.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XIII, Issue 64, 15 March 1878, Page 2

TURKEY— ENGLAND.

To the Editor of the 'Evening Mail.' Sih — As you found space for the extracts from Lord Lyndhurst's speech on Russian encroachments and Russian meudacity, perhaps you would likewise insert the following " Testament" drawn up by auother Peer of England for presentation to the Queen, but death— as in the case of Lord Holland and Prince Albert — prevented it. The author was Lord Ponsouby, brother-in-law of Lord Grey and the Ambassador of the Reform and Whig Government at Brussels, Naples, Vienna, and Constantinople. They are historical facts, but probably not known to mauy of your readers: — " Consecutive perfidies of the English Government to Turkey.— -'ln 1791, the English Government had resolved to resist the encroachments of Russia in the Black Sea, and fitted out an armament to attack Russia in the Baltic. Mr Fox encouraged the Empress in her schemes, and Mr Pitt abandoned the course which he had considered it his duty to adopt. In 1806, every difference between England and Trance having been adjusted, Russia required the cession of Moldavia and Wallachia to herself. England did make the demand for Russia, and in consequence of its rejection by Erance the two countries and Europe were again plunged in war. In 1812, on the occasion of the iuvasion of Russia by France when Turkey might have resumed the provinces already wrested from her, a treaty was signed, under the mediation of England, by which Russia got Bessarabia. In 1814-15, at the Congress of Vienna, to restore the territories that had been abstracted during the war, Bessarabia was not restored, and Turkey was deliberately excluded f root the •• reparatory stipulations " and the general guarantee of that act. In 1821, on the occasion of the Greek insurrection and the rupture between Turkey and Russia, by reason of the perfi.iyof the latter, England undertook to be the mouthpiece of Russia. In 1826, on the occasion of the convention of- Acherrnan, obtained by Russia under the promise of not interfering further in the Greek affairs, a secret protocol was signed between England and Russia for that interference, but without contemplating coercive measures. ("The following year the English squadron, supported by the Russian and French navies, destroyed the Turkish marine forces at Navarino. The Turks then, as lately, proved themselves heroic] In 182S, the English Government called upon the Pacha of Egypt to make himself independent. In 1829, Lord Aberdeen expressed to the Russian Ambassador his desire for the success of the Russian arms, and acted accordingly. In the same year the Treaty of Adrianople was forced upon the Porte by the English Ambassador, when ;i few weeks would have brought the annihilation of the remnants of the Russian force. All this in violation of the original compact with England, In 1831, on the occasion of the Polish insurrection, Turkey — moved by a common feeling with Persia, Sweden, France, and Austria, sought and prepared to maintain that country. The action of Turkey and the rest was restrained by England. In 1833, when Mehemet Ali invaded the Ottoman Empire, the Sultan appealed to England for protection, which was refused, Russia being inviied by her to aff rd it. The following year England menaced Turkey on account of the treaty which she had been forced to sign with. Russia as the price of this assistance. In 1838, a treaty of Commerce was forced on the Porte which carried a high export duty on all those articles of Turkish growth which competed with the produce of of Russia. In 1840, again, on the occasion of an invasion by Mehemet Ali, England signed a treaty with Russia, stipulating for the defence of Constantinople and the Sultan by Russian arms. In 1841, England signed a treaty for the exclusion of her own vessels from the Black Sea, and depriving the Sultan of the sovereignty of those waters. ,In 1843, on the occasion of a revolution in Servia, the English. Government admitted the

treaty of Adrianople as valid, and declared that Russia might interpret it as she pleased. Iu 1844, the English Minister accepted a metnoiaiulum from Count Nesselrodc, of verbal communications having reference to the ultimate disposal o£ Turkey, and kept it secret. In 1*49, England refused its support to the Porte against a treaty imposed upon it by Russia for a joint occupation of the Danubian principalities for eight years. In 1853, England refused, its support to Turkey against the outrage of forcing the displacement of the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Servia. Iu the same year it refused its support against the the invasion of the Danubian principalities by Eussia; endeavored to make the Porte acquiesce in the invasion of its territory by lviissia, and the claims she put forth to justify that invasion ; and obtained a passage into the close waters of Turkey for a naval force so powerful as to place in power the independence of the Ottoman Empire. During this whole course of time, the English Government professed the deepest anxiety for the wellbeing of the Ottoman Empire, holding its independence to be the grave -t of the interests of England beyond its shares" SofarLordPonsonby. What has transpired since— including the bloody but futile Crimean war— is pretty well known. The Turk has been called " treacherous " for coming to terms with his bitterest enemy. I was rvach. struck by the Psalm last Sunday—" For it is rot an open enemy that hath done me this dishonor ; for then I could have borne it, neither was it mine adversary . . .for then I could have hid myself from him. . . . But it was even thou, my companion, my guide, mine own famila'r frieud." Yours, &c, E. Tucker. Pangatotara, March 13, 1878.