¹ East, W. G., [Union of Moldavia and Wallachia, 1929.Google ScholarRiker, T. W., Making of Roumania, 1931.Google Scholar

² An amendment was made by the French Ambassador in London, and substituted for the two last paragraphs.

³ E[nglish] H[istorical] R[eview], XLIII, 409–12.

⁴ Henry Wellesley, 1st Earl Cowley, English Ambassador in Paris.

⁵ Sir Henry Bulwer, English Commissioner under Article 23 of the Treaty of Paris to investigate the condition of the Danubian Principalities.

⁶ F.O. 352/48. [Correspondence, largely unsorted, of Stratford de Redcliffe at the Public Record Office.] This letter is lengthy, and was begun on 11 August but only continued and dispatched on the 13th.

⁷ See Eckstädt, Vizthum von, St Petersburg and London in the Years 1852–1864, 1887, I, 224, where it is explained that Palmerston's invitation lay unnoticed on his crowded desk.Google Scholar

⁸ Under Article 23 of the Treaty of Paris, the fate of the Danubian Principalities was to be settled by the Powers in Congress in 1858.

⁹ The other three powers who had joined with France in demanding that the elections be annulled, viz. Russia, Prussia and Sardinia.

¹⁰ Private letter from Cowley to Clarendon on 14 August. Where no further reference is given my authority is a letter in the Clarendon MSS. I am indebted to Professor Temperley for permission to make use of extracts from Clarendon's private papers.

¹¹ Cowley wrote on 18 August privately to Clarendon that Walewski's attitude on the question of the Union left much to be desired. Walewski had even told the “smaller diplomatic fry” in Paris that nothing but the Moldavian elections had been discussed even at Osborne.

¹² See note 3.

¹³ F.O. 93/33/67 X.

¹⁴ A[merican] H[istorical] R[eview], XXXIV, 243. [In an article on the Pact of Osborne later incorporated in his book on The Making of Roumania.]

¹⁵ F.O. 27/1222.

¹⁶ Martin, T., Life of the Prince Consort, 1875–1880, IV, 113–14.Google Scholar

¹⁷ See “A Text of the Osborne Agreement,” p. 221.

¹⁸ East, E.H.R. XLIII, 409–12, dates Persigny's amendment between 10 and 17 August.

¹⁹ They had broken off diplomatic relations with the Porte, but were still at Constantinople. Thouvenel found his position unbearable, and pressed Walewski to allow him to come home (Cowley to Clarendon, 24 August). Cowley thought Stratford probably rather enjoyed the discomfort of Thouvenel and his satellites (ibid. 21 August).

²⁰ Dispatched 10 and 13 August. F.O. 78/1249. Telegrams for Constantinople were at that time wired to Vienna and taken on by special messenger.

²¹ On 10 August. [F.O. 78/1249.] A telegram of 14 August informed him that Seymour reported the French Ambassador at Vienna as having been assured by Buol that Austria would co-operate with England and France at Constantinople. But this was hardly an instruction [ibid.]. It must also be remembered that one telegram at that date was not necessarily regarded as authoritative, in view of possible blunders in transmission.

²² On 21 August Stratford received Clarendon's decisive telegram of the 20th. [F.O./1249.]

²³ Of 11–13 August. F.O. 352/48.

²⁴ Nos. 739 and 740. F.O. 78/1249. See East, Moldavia and Wallachia, 141–143, for an unfavourable view of Stratford's conduct.

²⁵ Endorsement on original dispatch in F.O. 195/545.

²⁶ See note 21.

²⁷ In private letters to Clarendon dated 21, 26 and 31 August. Drafts of the first two are in F.O. 352/48. The last I found only in the Clarendon MSS, Papers.

²⁸ See note 21.

²⁹ F.O. 78/1269. Stratford to Clarendon by telegraph, 11–12 August.

³⁰ F.O. 78/1249.

³¹ The italics are mine. East renders this passage “[It is] very important that the Turkish government should do what we recommend… we rely on your zeal and ability for persuading it to do so” [Moldavia and Wallachia, p. 141]. I have not been able to discover his authority for this version. The footnote 1 on p. 141, which is inaccurate, seems to indicate Stratford's repeat, No. 723 of 16 August, of this telegram. But that version of this paragraph tallies with the draft in F.O. 78/1249, although later on the cypher was apparently unintelligible.

³² Private letter to Clarendon, 21 August. Draft in F.O. 352/48.

³³ Dated 14 August. F.O. 78/1249.

³⁴ Letter from Prokesch to Stratford. F.O. 352/48.

³⁵ F.O. 78/1269.

³⁶ He wrote: “I have taken no steps beyond the communication of the Osborne agreement”, 18 August. F.O. 78/1269.

³⁷ See dispatch No. 761, 20 August, to Stratford. F.O. 78/1249.

³⁸ Not, however, until the morning of 22 August. Telegram dated 21 August from Stratford. F.O. 78/1269.

³⁹ Cowley to Clarendon, private, 18 August: “It is evident…that the cat has been let out of the bag (by whom?) at Const[antino]ple.”

⁴⁰ A.H.R. XXXIV, 246.

⁴¹ F.O. 7/521, No. 843.

⁴² On 11 August Hübner was shown the telegraphic summary of the Osborne agreement received by Cowley on 10 August. de Hübner, Comte A., Neuf Ans de souvenirs d'un Ambassadeur, 1904, II, 44.Google Scholar This summary did not mention secrecy.

⁴³ Edited [1920] from the Cowley Papers by Col. the Hon. F. A. Wellesley. Unfortunately we do not know the date of this letter. Bulwer's private letters to Clarendon suggest that Walewski had sent something to Talleyrand at Bucharest.

⁴⁴ Comte A. de Hübner, op. cit., II, 44.

⁴⁵ The Congress to decide the fate of the Principalities was at that time (June 1858) in session at Paris. France favoured the Unionist cause, and Cowley considered that the new English Government was not making a firm enough stand on the Osborne agreement. So on 4 June 1858 Cowley summarized for Malmesbury the events of the year before, and sent him a copy of the Pact. [Cowley to Malmesbury. 4 June 1858. No. 593- F.O. 27/1251.]

^It is interesting to note that on 15 June 1858 Palmerston wrote to Clarendon, after a communication from Malmesbury, an interesting summary from memory of the Osborne discussions. He pointed out that “we performed our part of the bargain, and [the Emperor] must abide by his.” He refers to the Memorandum, drawn up by himself, which embodied the arrangements made, which he presumes is still in the Foreign Office, as a document which could be appealed to. I am indebted to Professor Temperley for a transcript of this letter, from the Clarendon MSS.

⁴⁶ F.O. 146/794.

⁴⁷ See note 3.

⁴⁸ Note 43.

⁴⁹ East, E.H.R. XLIII, 410, states that this copy, which is on paper similar to that used in the Paris Embassy, is in Cowley's hand. This does not appear certain.

⁵⁰ An extract of this letter, in French, was enclosed in Cowley's private letter to Clarendon of 14 August.

⁵¹ Cf. Cowley's dispatch of 15 August, No. 1144, F.O. 27/1181, which describes Hübner's interview with Walewski for official use.

⁵² See note 50.

⁵³ This is probably the letter quoted, without a date, in Wellesley, Paris Embassy during the Second Empire.

⁵⁴ F.O. 352/48. The news concerned the Russian attitude towards the Pact of Osborne, and Gortchakoff's disappointment at the renewed Anglo-French entente.

⁵⁵ This item was considered important enough to be included in the brief summary of this letter with which it was endorsed.

⁵⁶ F.O. 27/1222.

⁵⁷ Mr S. T. Bindoff, of University College, London, who is far more conversant than I am with Palmerston's calligraphy, confirmed my identification.

⁵⁸ E.H.R. XLIII, 409–12.

⁵⁹ East's versions being from papers of June 1858.

⁶⁰ Altered from “within fifteen days after the day on which the recent elections shall have been annulled”.

⁶¹ Altered from “Governors and legislatures”.

⁶² The version of Persigny's amendment bound in the same volume, is headed, in Palmerston's hand, “to be inserted at A”.