her plenipotentiaries were artfully drawn by those of Russia to Ack. erman; but does not explain what is meant by this insinuation.— Whether the treaty was signed at Ackerman, or upon the frontier line between the two empires, is perfectly immaterial, unless it were shown that the Turkish Plenipoten. tiaries at Ackerman, were under some influence or control of Russia, to which they would not have been subject on the frontiers. Of this, there is no pretence-and the suspicion is evidently thrown out, merely to serve as a palliative for the total disregard of the treaty, by the Porte herself. then any cause of complaint, for the inexecution on the part of Prussia of her engagements, that was the time to have brought them forward. There is not, as has already been remarked, the most distant allusion to any such cause of complaint in the treaty of Ackerman; we may therefore safely conclude, that whatever failure of fulfilment to the engagements of Russia at Bucharest, may have occurred, it was such as necessarily followed from a previous breach of faith on the part of the Turk. There is an effort in the Turkish document, to charge upon Russia the origin of the Greek insurrection; but it is not sustained by the slightest show of evidence. Another more direct, and far It complains, that Prince Ypsilanti, more important allegation, is, that upon his irruption into Moldavia, the Porte was induced to subscribe came from Russia, and that when, to the treaty of Ackerman, solely after his defeat, he took refuge by the official declaration of the there, Russia refused to deliver Russian plenipotentiaries, with the him, and the Hospodar of Molda- knowledge of their government; via, Michael Sutzo, up to the Porte. that Russia considered the Grecian It qualifies this refusal, as a breach insurrection as entirely an internal of treaty; but there was no treaty concern of the Turkish governbetween Russia and the Porte, which ment, in which she could take no required that Russia should deliver part; and that this declaration them up; and the plea of humanity, was inserted in the common proto upon which she justified her refu- col of the negotiation kept by the sal, was certainly all-sufficient to plenipotentiaries of both parties. that effect. If Russia has any If this statement were true, it would thing to answer for, in regard to not only have justified the Porte that gallant spirit, Prince Ypsilanti, for refusing to execute the treaty it is assuredly not with the Porte, of Ackerman, but would have been that rests the just cause of com- an act of the most signal perfidy on plaint. the part of Russia. But it is evi. The Sublime Porte asserts, that dently not true; for if it had been First-The Porte, instead of a mere naked assertion of the fact, with an equivocal reference to the secret protocol, would have produced the entry upon the protocol itself. Secondly-The Porte would not have failed to produce this solemn promise of Russia, in answer to the repeated joint applications of the three ambassadors after the treaty of 6th July, 1827. In the manifesto of the preceding 9th of June, the Reis Effendi had indeed alleged that the Russian agents had declared, that there should be no interference on this subject; as it alledged a previous declaration of the same kind, by the British ambassador, on his return from Verona. But as the declaration of Lord Strangford could only be, that the negotiating powers at Verona had determined, not jointly to interpose between the Turks and the Greeks at the congress; so whatever declaration may have been made by the Russian plenipotentiaries at Ackerman, could only be that the Greek question was one upon which they had no authority to treat, and in which the Emperor, in the adjustment of his separate relations with the Porte, would not interfere. Such a declaration they were indeed bound in candour to make, for it was perfectly conformable to the protocol of St. Petersburgh of the preceding 4th of April, with which the Porte could scarcely then be unacquainted. Thirdly-If there had been such an engagement by the Russian plenipotentiaries at Ackerman, as the Porte now pretends; it would not have been pretermitted in the summons to arms of all his subjects by the Sultan, in the Firman of the 20th of December. In that docu. ment, he expressly declares, that he had subscribed to the treaty of Ackerman, as a temporary expedient to gain time, without intending ever to carry it into execution. Insensible as the disciple of the Koran may be to the obligation of treaties, contracted with infidels, he cannot be supposed so utterly lost to the sense of his own interests, as to charge himself with wilful treachery in the very case, upon which he could convict the adversary of treachery against himself. ac Fourthly-The manifesto knowledges that Mr. Ribeaupierre, the ambassador on the part of Russia, who joined with those of Great Britain and France, in communicating to the Porte the treaty of London of the 6th of July, 1827, was himself the second of the Rus. sian plenipotentiaries at Ackerman, and that he denied the existence of any such promise as that alleged by the Porte. And, finally, the allies of Russia, in the treaty of 6th July, 1827, had been very reluctantly brought to unite with her in undertaking to settle the Greek controversy. Their constant policy had been to preyent the interposition of Russia, singly, upon that question. Had the Porte been able to produce proof, that Russia had so recently promised not to interfere in it at all, they would readily have availed themselves of it, to decline uniting with her in a treaty so exceedingly unwelcome to Porte. Altogether the evidence is conclusive against the pretension set forth in her last manifesto. From the conflicts of the pen, we pass, in the next chapter, to those of the sword. CHAPTER XII. Natural defences of Constantinople-Passage of the Pruth by the Russian army-Occupation of Moldavia and Wallachia-Siege and surrender of Brailow-Siege of Varna-Investment of Shumla-Occupation of Isaktcha-Bazardjik and Jenibazar-Attack on the Russian redoubts by Hussein Pasha-Evacuation of Eski Stamboul-The Emperor Nicholas leaves the camp before Shumla-repairs to Varna-to Odessa -Attack of the Russian positions before Shumla, by Hussein Pasha and Hali Pasha-defeated-Operations of the Russian fleet before Varna-Sortie of the Turks-Prince Menzikoff disabled-Command of the siege transferred to Count Woranzoff-Levy of 4 men in 500, by the Emperor Nicholas-Loan in Holland-He returns to VarnaProgress of the siege-Surrender of Yussuff Pasha and of VarnaRussian camp before Shumla raised-The Emperor Nicholas embarks for Odessa in danger of shipwreck-returns to St. Petersburg-Operations in Moldavia and Wallachia-Siege of Silistria-Attack by the Seraskier of Widdin upon Gen. Geismar at Crazoi-defeated-Geismar takes Kalafat-Retreat of Wittgenstein from Shumla-Siege of Silistria -raised-Wittgenstein goes into winter quarters at Jassy-his resignation-Count Diebitch appointed to the command of the army-Campaign in Asia-Siege and surrender of Kars-of Poti-of Akhalkali -of Tcherursy-of Akhaltzik-Diversion attempted by the Pasha of Moresch-defeated-Pashalik of Bayazid occupied by the Russians Naval operations-Anapa taken by Admiral Greig-he proceeds to Varna-Russian squadrons in the Mediterranean-Admirals Hayden and Ricord-Blockade of the Dardanelles-Death of the Empress Mother of Russia. THE natural defences of Constantinople from the approaches of a Russian force are, the Black Sea, the Danube, and the Balkan moun. tains. From the mouths of the Danube, following the almost semicircular curvature of the Euxine shore, the distance to the Bosphorus is about four hundred miles. The Danube, at its mouth, is, since the treaty of Bucharest, the boun. dary between the two empires. The province of Bessarabia extends in a northern and northeasterly direction from Kilia at the northern mouth of the Danube to Ackerman, on the banks and southern side of the Dniester. The principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia are situated north of the Danube; the latter, bounded by that river to the south, and Hungary to the north; the former between the Russian province of Bessarabia, and the Carpathian mountains. Bulgaria extends south of the Danube to the range of the Balkan; between which and Constantinople the plains of Roumelia only are in. terposed. On the left bank of the Danube, near the central point at which the four provinces of Bes. sarabia, Moldavia, Bulgaria and Wallachia meet, and within the borders of this last, stands the fortress of Ibrail or Brailow. Thence, ascending the river, and on its south ern borders, are situated in succession, the strong places of Hirsowa or Kirsova, Silistria, and Rus. tshuk. At about half-way distance between the mouths of the Danube and Constantinople is the fortified city and seaport of Varna, and on the Black sea, and inland, distant from it about twenty miles, the still more fortified place of Schumla,or Shumla, in a valley, between two lofty hills. Along the shores of the Euxine, and on the southern banks of the Danube, are a number of other places, more or less fortified, but not suited to sustain a siege, or arrest the progress of an army. Immediately after the Russian declaration of war on the 7th of May, 1828, an army of 115,000 men, commanded by Count Wittgenstein, which had been for some time assembling in Bessarabia, commenced its march in three divisions; the right wing, com. manded by General Roth; the centre, by the Grand Duke Michael, the Emperor's brother; and the left, by General Rudzewitch. The first, in a few days, occupied the principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, without meeting any opposition. The centre, after passing the Pruth, and taking Galacz, proceeded to besiege Brailow, a place highly important as one of the passes of the Danube, and by its locality at once a key to the four provinces. While they were before this place, the left division had passed the Danube near Ismail, and successively taken Isaktchi, Kirsova, Tulcza, Kustandji and Anapa; the two latter places on the Black sea. The siege of Brailow commenced on the 15th of May; and it surrendered on the 18th of June, after an obstinate defence, and with the loss of several thousand men on both sides. After the siege had continued a month, the Russians having effected a breach, the Grand Duke Michael directed, on the 15th, a Three mines were to be sprung at once, as the signal for the assault. One of the mines exploding prematurely, killed the officer who was to fire the second, which consequently failed of being sprung. The third exploded; and the assault was made. A party on the right succeeded in scaling storm. |