The Press. — London, England, 1854-04-08 00:00:00

// ett,fo ■ MI LONDON, SATURDAY, APRIL 8, 1854. No. 49.—VoL. 11. NEWSPAPER STAMPS. Tnz Return just issued of Stamps supplied to Newspapers in 1853 exhibits the following comparative results : Britannia Examiner John Bull Leader PRESS [From May 7th to 1 )ecember 81—Eight Months.] Spectator 105,508 241,525 95,000 120,700 123,000' 146,500 Vrtss. 2,029 4,684 1,826 2,321 3,514 2,817 LONDON, SATURDAY, APRIL 8, 18.54. WE have received an authoritative commu nication from an individual, who " desires " to be described" as " one competent to make " a statement with respect to the secret Memoran " dum of 1844. This communication refers to a speech delivered in the House of Lords by the Earl Of ABERDEEN, 011 Friday, the 31st ult., in reply to a leading article which appeared in this journal on the 25th of the same month. Our correspondent states that the descrip tion of the secret Memorandum, as" the key of " the relations between England and Russia," was not contained, as stated by us, in a pri vate letter from the Emperor of RUSSIA to the present Prime Minister of England, but in a private letter addressed by Count NESSEL - RODE to his Excellency Baron BRUNOW, then Russian Minister at the Court of St. James'. This letter our correspondent assures us he has the best reasons for believing was com municated to Lord ABERDEEN, and he cannot doubt that a copy of it must exist in England. Our correspondent adds, that there is no other portion of the article in the PRESS which he is prepared to question, and which article, in his belief, " conveys an accurate " picture of a diplomatic transaction, that was " not only intended to be secret, but the " secrecy of which, until this year 1854, had " been successfully preserved." So much for the " malignant misrepresen " tations " of the PRESS newspaper, which the Prime Minister of England deemed it his duty to denounce in the House of Lords, and attempt to refute in detail, on the most solemn occasion on which a Senate could assemble. We beg to inform Lord ABERDEEN that no statesman in this country was ever injured by malignant misrepresentations." No public man in England was ever written down by ca lumnies, though it has been often tried. But, on the other hand, authentic statements cannot be refuted by denouncing them as " malignant " misrepresentations." Truth will have its way, even if its victim be a Minister. of State. Some ten months ago, when the possibility of war first crossed the public mind, and the cue was first given to the Government runners and organs to inveigh against the duplicity and violence of Russia, we ventured to express, in these columns, our surprise at these ex pressions on the part of the Government, inasmuch as we had the best reasons for believing that Lord ABERDEEN had been privy, from the first, to the designs of the Emperor of RusslA, and had approved them ; and that, at the commencement of the year (1853), there had been an unreserved communication of the intentions of Russia to her Majesty's Govern ment. Last May that, too, was a " malignant " misrepresentation ;" it was more—it was " ab surd," and came from " a quarter not seriously "to be noticed." But the " malignant misre " presentation" so much attracted the attention the public that it became necessary to notice it. So a circumlocutory contradiction was, at length, ventured on in the principal Govern ment organ, which, while it assailed our state ment, did not condescend to mention our name. What is thought of that " malignant " misrepresentation" now ? During the whole of last summer and autumn the PRESS newspaper continued to make " malignant misrepresentations." When the Government organ congratulated the country that the Menschikoff ultimatum was accepted, we maliciously denied the state ment ; when we were assured that the affiiir was " a mere diplomatic imbroglio," and that " all would soon be settled," we maliciously asserted that, on the contrary, " the present " prospect was that war would break out." When we were amused with the rumours of conciliatory measures, and that Austria had been engaged effectually to interfere, we mali ciously maintained that the Russians would pass the Pruth. In the same spirit of deliberate mischief we warned the country of the diplomatic conspi racy, which had resolved, either in the shape of Vienna notes, or Turkish propositions, that the Russian ultimatum should in spirit be adopted ; and in December last, when we were again officially informed that the long protracted settlement was at hand, we an nounced that we had authority to state that " the part of Russia was definitively taken, and " that part was, war " In short, there has been no limit to the spitefulness with which, during our brief existence, we have laboured to obtain authentic information on the Eastern question for the British public. We actually published the final instructions of the Em peror of RUSSIA to MM KISSELEFF and BRu• Now before they reached the Courts which those Ministers were commanded to quit, as well as the orders sent out to the allied Admirals as to entering the Black Sea. We were even so malevolent as to throw some light on the mission of Count ORLOFF at a moment when our contemporaries bad agreed that nothing was known on the subject. The consequence of all this evil disposition has been that our journal, in ten months, has obtained a circulation larger than many of its contemporaries which have flourished twice as many years; and that the newspaper which a short time back was not even to be named by the Government organ, when it was absolutely necessary to impugn its authentic statement, has now its articles replied to in detail by the Prime Minister in his place in Parliament. Might not all this induce Lord ABERDEEN to suspect that " malignant misrepresentations " was only a splenetic misnomer for " incon " venient truths "? PRICE SIXPENCE. On Friday, the 31st, also, Lord AIIERDEEW• not for the first time, insinuated that he knew the writer of the article in the PaEss, or, as he calls it, " the source " from which it emanated. Now, this is very foolish. With his dreadful exposure about young Mr. ASTLEY still fresh in everybody's recollection, one would have sup posed his lips would have trembled at ven turing on similar conjectures. As we have had occasion to say before, it matters nothing who are the writers of the PaEss. Newspaper articles are the most self-relying of all con ceivable things. They depend only on their own qualities, and their influence rests on the information they ofier, the views they promul gate, and the manner in which these are ex pressed. The articles in the PaEss which have excited the ire of Lord ABERDEEN have been written by various persons, and there is not one among them who would object to sign his name to his observations, if the custom of this country permitted it. The custom of this country does not permit it, as is well known to Lord ABERDEEN and the large majority of his colleagues, who have been, anti are, them selves habitually anonymous writers, both in political and general literature. At a moment when so much is at stake, the writers of the PRESS believe that, in attempting to throw some authentic light on transactions of great importance, and on the characters and conduct of the principal actors on the scene, they are fulfilling an office not unbecoming gentlemen, and the subjects of a free monarchy. Of those subjects, no matter by Mhat means, the Earl of ABERDEEN 18 now the must eminent; and, in our opinion, it is an elevation highly perni cious to the country. Since DANBY there has not been a more dangerous Minister. With an affectation of honesty, and an owl-like pru dence, he is, in fact, an unprincipled and reck less man, while, at the same time, he is altogether destitute of those bold views and those large emotions which sometimes accom pany and mitigate an unscrupulous selfish ness. The unhappy war in which Europe is now involved is entirely owing to his becoming Prime Minister. It is Lord ABERDEEN'S war. At the moment he was appointed First Minis ter he was prime councillor of the principal intriguers against thetEmperor of the FRENCH, with a secret understanding with the Emperor of RUSSIA. These are the antecedents which have produced the present hostilities. Russia advanced not only because Lord ABERDEEN was Minister, but because it was well known to NICHOLAS that Lord ABERDEEN was per sonally hostile to NAPOLEON. Nor was any attempt made to remove this impression, even when Prince MENSCHIROFF was menacing at Constantinople. On the contrary, England took that opportunity of publicly refusing to co-operate with France! And, notwithstand ing the Emperor of RUSSIA, at the beginning of January, spoke of France to Sir H. SNYMOUR in exactly the same language as that of the secret Memorandum of 1 , 444, not a step was taken to disabuse his mind. Lord ABERDEEN continued to accept his Imperial Majesty's compliments about the " salutary impulse " lie had given to the British counsels, and the " beau role" he was playing in keeping France " isalie,"—although he had received overtures from the Emperor of RUSSIA months before to revive the partition plan of 11444, and although he knew the condition of that project was the exclusion of France from the transaction. It is the exposure of these delinquencies that makes Lord ABERDEEN wince under the articles of the PRESS, and occasions him those miNdmi