The Press. — London, England, 1854-03-18 00:00:00

//a ~~~~~ 111 YGtf' 01 ett6,s .4 4 LONDON, SATURDAY, MARCH 18, 1854. No. 46.:--VoL. 11. g4t dress. LONDON, SATURDAY, MARCH 18, 1854. IT is nearly ten months since, on " the eve of " those great events " which we predicted at a time when the Government organs were as suring us that " the affair was a mere diplo " matic imbroglio," that, noticing the charges of duplicity against the Emperor of RUSSIA, then beginning to circulate from Downing street, we intimated that there could be no foundation for this accusation of deceit, since we had reason to believe that early in the year (1833) the Emperor of RUSSIA had commu nicated with her Majesty's Government un reservedly on the state of the Ottoman dominions, and on his absolute, or contingent, intentions with respect to the Porte. This statement, having attracted some notice, not withstanding the silent scorn which is the routine treatment of young journals by estab lished " organs," was at length with a great show of derisive indignation, but really with considerable ambiguity of phrase, contradicted by the principal medium of the Foreign-office. On proper occasions we again advanced it, with equal confidence, and sometimes with more detail. The denials gradually became fainter and fainter : they took first the form of explanations, and finally subsided into silence. For several months we have, when necessary, treated our original statement as an unchallenged fact, and on Saturday last the Foreign-office, pushed into a corner by the taunts of the Journal of St. Petersburg, made a clean breast of it, and the original impugner of what we advanced not only acknowledged its authenticity, but supplied some details in which we had been deficient. No one denied the right of the Ministers to suppress any diplomatic correspondence or communications the production of which they believe, on their responsibility, will be detri mental to the public interests. This discre tion is unreservedly entrusted to them ; but a wise and honest Minister will not exercise it wantonly. But what becomes, under the cir cumstances, of Lord ABERDEEN'S plea, by which he excuses the failure of his policy, namely, that he had been deceived by the Emperor of RusstA ? Unless we are greatly mistaken, the exposition of the opinions and intentions of the Emperor of RUSSIA was so frank that Lord ABERDEEN ought to have been prepared even for the last contingency. While the Emperor looked upon the decomposition of the Ottoman state as inevitable—not to say immediate—he explicitly conveyed his deter mination not to submit to the creation of whimsical Byzantine empires, or to fantastic republics, without any republicans, being established on his frontier. After such decla rations, one is apt to fancy that a "policy of suspicion" may be both " wise and safe." Let it be remembered that, when Count NESSELBODE announced to the British Govern• meat the occupation of the principalities, he declared that in taking that step the Emperor of RUSSIA " had remained faithful to his decla " rations to the English Government," and that it had never been concealed from the Cabinet of London, at the opening of the negotiations, that a military movement on the part of Russia might be indispensable. The truth of this statement is proved by the fact that, subsequently, Lord ABERDEEN never would make the evacuation of the piincipali ties a condition of settlement. There was no difference of opinion between the English Mi nister and the Russian Chancellor as to the character of this military step. It was never intended as an act of permanent aggression; yet they now pretend we are going to war to enforce the evacuation of the principalities ! The amazing disclosures of the Journal of St. Petersburg, entirely corroborated by the admissions and supplementary revelations of the Times, have produced a great sensation. The world has asked how is it that the Times contains information which could only be known to a Cabinet Minister; as, for example, the nature of the reply of the English Minister, which, we are told, was "indignant," to some Russian proposition. We do not think the Times is called upon to explain how it obtains important information, and we think it very much to the honour and the. credit of that journal that it possesses an influence which commands and compels such disclosures. The spirit, too, in which the Times has vindi- cated the modern position of journalists is highly laudable. This, however, we will say, that, generally speaking, when State secrets appear in a newspaper, they are imparted by some of the principal actors in the trans actions. The only exception, indeed, to this rule that we can immediately recal is the instance in question ; for it appears that it is not to the Emperor of RUSSIA, or the Emperor of the FRENCH, or Count NESSELRODE, or Lord ABERDEEN, that the public are indebted for the important communication which was first commenced in this journal ten months ago, and completed on Saturday last in the Times newspaper, but to a young gentleman, name unknown, preferred to a junior clerkship in the Foreign-office by Lord 111ALMESBURY, and which, after devoting some twelve months to the copying of slave-trade despatches, he wisely ex changed for some more profitable calling. This is the experienced hand that, according to Lord ABERDEEN, was entrusted with the trans cription of State secrets, heretofore confided to heads grey with years and trustworthiness. This probable story obtains additional weight from the circumstance that the individual in question is stated to have quitted the Foreign office more than eight months ago ; and yet the betrayal, not only of official, but of Cabinet secrets has since that period been as methodi• cal as interesting. Had the young clerk in question remained in Downing-street, it is just possible that, listening at the door of the Cabinet, which always meets at the Fo reign -office, he might have learnt the cause of Lord PALMERSTON'S secession in December, which the Times so kindly and expeditiously communicated to us. Absolute clairvoyance on the part of the anonymous youth, however, can alone account for the following miracle. At a Cabinet Council held at the end of last month it was decided that Great Britain and France should immediately transmit a sum mons to the Emperor of RUSSIA to evacuate the principalities by the 30th April, and an PRICE SIXPENCE. answer was required within six days after the receipt. It so happened that the Queen's messenger who bore this peremptory despatch was detained at Vienna, so that he could not arrive at:St. Petersburg before the 13th inst.: nevertheless, on the Bth instant the Times newspaper of the 28th February made its appearance in that capital with a leading arti cle divulging the whole tenor of the coming despatches, and rendering it quite impossible, even had the inclination existed, for the Rus sian Government, with any sense of self. respect, to comply with the summons of the Western Powers. Such are the consequences of the preferment by a Conservative Secretary of State to a junior clerkship in the Foreign-office of a mesmeric youth ! No wonder Lord ABERDEEN felt the " ad " vantage of a character for truth and honour" under such circumstances as these. When a person accused calls witnesses to character his position is tolerably palpable. Lord ABER DEEN'S " character for truth and honour," and lie said this in the face of Lord DERBY ! But Lord DERBY has a taste for humour, and, they say, loves a joke. Is it not notorious that the principal inspirer of the Ttma on foreign affairs is a colleague of Lord ABERDEEN, and not only a colleague, but one of those col leagues who do not oppose him in his Ca binet ? We care not to dwell upon this sub ject, but it would be as to easy to write the name as to write that of a Secretary of State or a Lord President of the Council. We do not believe that Lord ABERDEEN disapproves of these relations : we will say more, we have circumstantial proof that he encourages and sanctions them. What, then, are we to think of a man self-confessedly with " one foot in " the grave" condescending to the subterfuge which he has absolutely repeated in the House of Lords, and not hesitating, by a reckler calumny, to sacrifice the character of a youth in order that he may wound a political opponent? What are we to think of a man who, five years ago, was described by one of the most eminent of his colleagues as " a piece of antiquated imbecility," still cling ing to power and reputation by such desperate arts as these ? There is no spectacle so mournful as that of unscrupulous old age. Since the above was written Lord ABERDEEN has been compelled, by force of evidence pro duced before the House of Lords, to retract his charge. Reluctant as was the recantation, it is none the less conclusive. Mr. ASTLEY'S character (thus the unknown is at length de signated) needs no further defence, but the exculpation of the clerk involves the complicity of the Minister. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. WE scarcely expected that the remarks we offered on the Civil Service Commission and their Report last Saturday would have received such complete confirmation in the House of Lords on Monday. But the House of Lords happens to agree with the world in general as to the merits of this eccentric production. Lord CLANRICARDE protests against the sketch of the existing officials drawn by the Commis sioners ; Lord BROUGHAM declares that he has not seen " a single 'person, either in the waltio*Newislidion. .r.aaaai ~..,,~.a gill