In an examination of the question of concert between
Russia and Lord Palmerston, this question of Circassia is of
paramount importance. What did his lordship do in so
important a case ? On his accession to the administration of
Foreign Affairs, he found Russia bound by the most solemn
Treaties to refrain from any action on Circassia, oxinterference
with its commerce : — The principles which brought him into
power were, ** non-intervention " in the afihirs of Foreign
Countries, but it would be thought that if he could, in any
case, be justified in breaking through this rule, it was in
defence of the independence of so important a country as
Circassia — ^he was even bound to do so by the Treaty in
question, if Russia evinced a desire to violate it. Russia did
violate it, by pursuing a system of warfare against Circassia for
purposes of aggrandisement ; but what did Lord Palmerston ?
He not only did not interfere in defence of Circassia — ^he not
only did not uphold British commercial rights in Circassia,

but he DID ACTUALLY HIMSELF OVERTHROW BRITISH RiGHTS

in that country and transferred them to Russia I The seizure
of the '^ Vixen" is too femiliar to require anything but an
allusion. The examination of the papers presented to Parlia-
ment shows that the owners of that Vessel sent her to Circassia
by the sanction of Lord Pabnerston, and on the faith of the
Official Gazette, to which they were referred, as showing that
there was no Russian Blockade ; they (the papers) prove that
she was seized by a Russian cruiser on the pretext of a breach
of blockade ; and that she was confiscated on the pretext-
not tbat she had broken a blockade, but on the plea of a
violation of the Custom-house regulations, imposed by Russia
on a coast of which she was not in possession, and of which
to evince an intention to be in possession, was to violate a
Treaty with England! The seizure of the Vixen, even
supposing every form of International Law to have been com-
plied with, was virtually a declaration of war by Russia
against England, but independently of the violation of the
Treaty of 6th July, 1827, every principle of International



105

»

Law was outraged by the seizure. 