its jurisdiction was extended to the Iron Gates.

This is everything of historical note that has, until quite recently,
been published with authority on the subject, but to those who are
interested either commercially or politically it has been well known
that the commission was not working smoothly, and that differences had
arisen between Austria and Roumania concerning their respective
jurisdiction. This first found public utterance in the Roumanian speech
from the throne last year, when the King said that his Government was
prepared to defend its rights to control the navigation of the Danube in
Roumanian waters, or words to that effect. What followed is contemporary
history. Austria, regarding this as an affront intended for herself,
threatened to withdraw her ambassador, and Roumania apologised. In the
meantime, however, M. Callimaki-Catargi, a former Minister of Roumania
in Paris and London, published in an unauthorised manner a long
correspondence between the Roumanian Foreign Secretary and himself,
which contained a statement of the Danubian difficulty that had been
handed to Lord Granville. It was circulated largely in France and
Roumania, and is interesting in relation to future events.[26] According
to M. Catargi, Austria has endeavoured, almost since the establishment
of the commission, to resist its action where she supposed such action
trenched upon _her_ interests and jurisdiction, whilst, on the other
hand, she has been aggressive upon the rights of her neighbours. It
appears from his statement that when it was attempted to form a
'Riverside Commission' to take the place of the original European
Commission, and keep the whole course of the Danube clear (a very
desirable object, as the reader will have seen from our description of
the Iron Gates), Austria objected to any interference with her
jurisdiction over that part of the Danube which flowed through her
territory. But when more recently the commission appointed a
sub-committee to study the lower Danube, and to report to it with such
recommendations as would ensure the carrying out of the project in its
integrity, it was found that some unseen influence had been at work to
change and pervert the entire constitution and objects of the
commission.

The report was made, but it was found quite inappropriate to the desired
end, as it ignored the freedom of the navigation, the question of the
coasting trade, &c.; whilst, on the other hand, it proposed a '