The Press.
London, England, 1854-08-26 00:00:00

KOSSUTH ON AUSTRIA.

- .
M. KOSSUTH on Monday delivered another long ad-
dress upon his favourite topic—" Austria and her
Alliance," at Hanley, in the Staffordshire potteries
district. His first and chief topic was the pending
occupation of the principalities by an Austrian
unit :
-• • -• • ••

-
"It was a sad view to see English diplomacy arresting
Omer Pacha from pursuing his brilliant victory at Olte-
nitza, and forcing him to retrace his steps across the
Danube, when, if allowed to go on, he would have easily
chased the Russians home a year ago, being twice as strong
on the Danube as they were before Austrian-England and
Austrian-France afforded time to the Czar for sending
down two armies to reinforce them. Yet, if I understand
the fact, to hand over to perfidious Austria the principali-
ties—liberated exclusively by Turkish blood, by Turkish
gallantry—would have been so shocking to political mo-
rality that the affectation of some claim was wanted, in
order to cover the turpitude of this most terrible mon-
strosity of our day. I mean the prearranged occupation
of Moida-Wallachia by Austria. On the 14th of July a
convention had been concluded between Austria and the
Sultan, under the auspices of England and France. The
stipulation of the convention is framed as follows The
Emperor of Austria takes the obligation upon himself to
exhaust all measures in the way of negotiation, and else,
also, to cause the Danubian principalities to be evacuated
by the foreign army which is occupying it ; and to employ,
if necessary, even a number of troops required for the
purpose—and will withdraw his forces from the princi-
palities after a treaty of peace shall have been concluded
between Turkey and Russia.' Such is that treaty from
which Austria desires to derive the authority for occupying
the principalities. Well may Lord Clanricarde hove re-
marked in the House of Lords it is notot ions that Tur-
key was extremely reluctant to allow this authority to
Austria.' Those who read the blue books know that a
fortnight before the Russian legation departed from Con-
stantinople, and a whole month before one Russian crossed
the Pruth, the English Ambassador gave the authoritative
advice to the Turkish Government that not only no resist-
ance should be offered to the Russians on their occupying
the principalities, but that they should not be resisted
even on their crossing the Danube, and that forbearance
should cease only on that line which could not be passed by
an enemy without danger to the capital. Now, that means
evidently the Balkan line. The English Government so
much approved of this that Lord Clarendon insisted very
strongly that positive orders should be given to Omer l'acha
to keep himself in the limits of this over-timid and ruinous
policy. This gives you the key to the disgraceful fact
that neither your armies nor Omer Pacha did anything to
Silistria. Thus you see that the allied armies went
to the East with the positive orders not to act, and not to
*lbw the Turks to act, on the Danube and beyond.
The Russiatia knew that their power had been broken
by the glorious heroism of one Single fortress garrison.
They actually began their retreat on the 22nd of June, and
have been aware of the fatal necessity of this retreat since
the 29th of May, so disastrous to them. They wanted to
have their rear secured, and the Turks kept out from the
principalities; they therefore informed Austria that they
were about to retreat, and required her to conclude the
convention with Turkey, thus to get the required security
by it. That is the history of this dirty trick. So striking
are these facts that the Vienna correspondent of the very
Times could not help informing his patrons that `the
whole thing has been prearranged between Russia and the
German powers ;' and it is ludicrous to see what pains the
Ministerial organ takes the following day to counterbalance
the ingenuousness of its own correspondent.
" It is notorious that Austria fixed on the 3rd of July for
entering Wallachia. Why so? Because Marshal Paskie-
wi tsch commenced his retreat on the 22nd of June. Yet

Austria did not enter. V Why ? Because, counter orders
having arrived from St. Petersburg, the Russians turned
round, and, instead of continuing to retreat, readvanced to
the Danube. So Austria stopped, and let them readvanee.
I think it is clear to demonstration that if the Austrian con-
vention were anything but criminal collusion with Russia,
then was the case to execute its stipulations, and to aid
the Turks in driving out the Russians. But this Austria
did not do—the remained inactive. The Turks acted ;
they crossed the Danube ; had beaten the Russians
decisively at Qiurgevo, Frateschti, Kalugereni, and pushed
on up to Bucharest. The Russians, beaten, recross the
Pruth. All this while Austria does not stir. But now. that
the Russians have left, now we again hear that Austria is
entering the principalities, and claims to take what the
Turks have gained. It is sheer treason and disgusting
infamy. But what do you say to it, that all this is done
under the auspices of England and France ? Was I not
right in saying that you are made to fight and to pay,. not
for assisting Turk ey,but for supporting Austrian despotism?
I scarcely can wonder that some English politicians go so
far as to come forth deliberately with a charge of collusion
with Russia. Situated as I am, I teel not competent to say
so much ; but this I dare assert, that be it premeditated
design or blindness, be it love of Austria or hatred of
national liberty, be it fear of Austria or fear of revolution—
in a word, be it crime or fault, weakness or the
Western powers are all the while doing the business of
despotism, and of Austria in particular. That England
has lent her authority for inducing Turkey to sign that