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

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