The Press.
London, England, 1857-11-28 00:00:00

DANUBIAN PROVINCES.

THE objections by a certain clique in this
country to the political union of the Danu-
bian provinces are neither numerous nor
effective. They may be summed up under
two heads. First, that England has no
interest in the solution of the Danu-
bian question ; and, secondly, that the
integrity of Turkey will be violated and
the Treaty of Paris broktu if Union be
decided on. These objections are inconsis-
tent in principle and untrue in fact.
If England has not the " slightest in-
terest " in the solution of the question—and
one solution leads to a violation of the in-
tegrity of Turkey and an infraction of the
Treaty of Paris—those who maintain this
argument must be prepared to admit that the
Russian war was " an accident," and that our
Eastern policy is "a farce." In a general sense
that may be a matter of opinion, but, at least,
we entered into the war with Russia for
definite objects, and we concluded the Peace
of Paris with a distinct purpose. That was to
protect Turkey from unjust aggression, and to
annihilate the supremacy of Russian influence
in the Danubian provinces. The folly, there-
fore, of asserting that the solution of this Da-
nubian question—a question which involves
within itself the whole principle of action,
which plunged us into war, and the essence of
the terms upon which ire consented to make
peace—is not of the " slightest interest " to
England is self-evident. We speak of poli-
tical, not of commercial or material interests ;
for if we consider those in reference to that
trade which the free navigation of the Danube
and the free government of these provinces
will offer to us, we have a mass of irresistible
evidence to prove that our material as well as
our political interests arc deeply involved in
the right solution of this simple question.
The second objection, that by the political
union of these provinces the integrity of
Turkey will be violated and the Treaty of
Paris broken, is equally weak and fallacious.
In order to comprehend the value of this
objection we must necessarily understand the
position of Turkey towards these Principali-
ties as recognised by the Treaty of Paris.
Articles 22 and 23 of that Treaty are as fol-
lows :

ARTICLE '2'2.

The principalities of 11:aliachiaand Moldavia will con.
tinue to enjoy, under the suzerainty of the Porte, and
under the guarantee of the contracting powers, the privi-
leges and immunities of which they are in possession.
No exclusive protection shall be exercised over them by
any one of the. guaranteeing powers. There shall be no
private (parliculter) right of interference with their in-
ternal affairs.
ARTICLE 23.
The Sublime Porte engages to preserve to the aforesaid
Principalities an independent and national administration,
as well as full liberty of worship, legislation, commerce,
and navigation.

By these articles it is clear that the suzerainty
of the Porte is guaranteed by the contracting
Powers, aid that is the only right Turkey is
entitled to. The Porte, on the other hand, is
bound to preserve to the Pfincipalities "an
" iniependent and national administration, as
" well as full liberty of worship, legislation,