Note 74 — PART II. THE EASTERN QUESTION.

“No sooner had Napoleon learned that an English Cabinet Minister was to go to Vienna than he sent thither also his own Minister of Foreign Affairs, M. Drouyn de Lhuys, while Prince Gortschakoff, who had already been designated as Nesselrode’s successor, represented Russia at the Conference. The first two points—the cessation of the Russian protectorate over Moldavia and Wallachia, and the regulation of the navigation of the Danube in conformity with the resolutions of the Congress of Vienna—presented little difficulty. On the other hand, a lively word combat, and a not less lively interchange of despatches, arose over the third point, which demanded the revision of the Dardanelles Treaty of July 13, 1841, and the abrogation of Russian supremacy in the Black Sea. The words, ‘mettre fin à la prépondérance russe dans la Mer Noire,’ were of a very elastic nature, and capable of various interpretations. The Western Powers, mindful of Europe, demanded the neutralization of the Black Sea and a limitation of the number of Russian and Turkish war ships. Gortschakoff declared that Sebastopol was not yet taken, and probably never would be taken, and that Russia must reject any attempt to limit her naval forces as a humiliation unworthy of a Great Power. Austria then proposed a compromise that Russia should pledge herself to maintain the status quo of 1853; and that each of the Western Powers should be entitled to station two frigates in the Black Sea, in order to see that Russia did not increase her fleet. At the same time Austria promised to consider it as a casus belli if Russia kept there a single ship of war more than in 1853. M. Drouyn de Lhuys, who, in the interest of exhausted France, was anxious to bring the war to an end, accepted this proposed compromise, and induced Lord John Russell to do likewise. Both were disavowed. Drouyn de Lhuys sent in his resignation, and was succeeded at the Ministry on the Quai d’Orsay by Walewski; but Lord John Russell, scorned alike by his friends and foes, returned to London, and, in spite of all, remained Minister for the present” (Count Vitzthum’s, “St. Petersburg and London.”)