The Press.
London, England, 1854-05-27 00:00:00

No. 56.—VoL. 11.

LONDON, SATURDAY, MAY 27, 1854.

vress.

on the certainty of all the great Powers being
compactly allied against Russian policy,
the Emperor of RUSSIA has probably succeeded
in changing the issue, and the controversy
will be no longer as to the evacuation of the
Turkish dominions, but on the recurrence to
the status quo, or to a redistribution of terri-
tory, with the four great Powers divided on
the question.
The difficulties of our Cabinet are increased,
because, as we have reason to believe, no
definite ideas prevail on the subjects of com-
pensation and security as conditions of peace.
We have reason also to believe that the Em
peror of the FRENCH has remarked that, since
the status quo cannot be recognised, and as no
plan of compensation and future security is
matured, prolonged occupation is the alter-
native ; and thus the consequence of our pro-
ceedings will be—the Turkish empire in the
systematic possession of foreign armies, which
hitherto has ever been the first step to parti-
tion, and which must, at all events, entail on
this country a vast and protracted expenditure,
probably without any results.

LONDON, SATURDAY, MAY 27, 1854.

WHILE the country is anxiously awaiting the
operations of its fleets and armies, it appears
that an active diplomatic campaign is going
on, in which already considerable results
have been obtained, though we are not so
sanguine as our contemporaries that the
advantages are on the side of the Allies.

It appears that negotiations for peace were

in active progress very shortly before the
declaration of war, and that, although that
manifesto seemed to indicate a conclusion of
these endeavours, the efforts have been since
renewed, and only a few weeks ago proposals
on the part of Russia were made to the
British Cabinet of so conciliatory a nature
that the Russian party in our Cabinet were
anxious for their acceptance. It was even
intimated, in order to further this result,
that the feelings of the Emperor NAPOLEON
coincided with those of Lord ABERDEEN. We
have reason to believe that the propositions of
Russia in this instance involved, to say the
least, a virtual concession of all those condi-
tions which had been insisted upon by the
Allies previous to the declaration of war. The
anti-Russian party in the British Cabinet,
however, succeeded, though with difficulty, in
the rejection of these propositions ; and an
opinion was expressed that the time for a
settlement on the status quo had passed.
It seems that shortly after this decision
it transpired that the advances on the part of
the Government of St. Petersburg were a
well-calculated feint. made on the assumption
that they would be rejected, and that the
Western Powers might become committed to
the dangerous course,— doubly dangerous when
indefinite,—of repudiating the status quo. No
sooner was this end obtained than, as it
reaches us, representations were made to
Austria and Prussia that the Emperor of
&RM. adhering to his voluntary engage-
ment to respect the integrity of the Turkish
empire, and not to seek any territorial aggran,
disement at its expense, and aelnowledging,
from the unforeseen circumstances that had
occurred, that his main object, the relief of
the Christian subjects of the Porte, had been
substantially obtained, was ready, in the
the interests of peace, and to evince his
regard for his allies, to cause the evacuation
of the Principalities by his armies without
reference to the simultaneous retreat of
hostile fleets. These overtures, as we are
assured, have been received with favour by the
two German Courts, and, at the present mo
ment, while in this country we are calculating

The renewal of the labours of the Vienna
Conference, and the recording protocol from
which so much is expected, are merely steps
in the accomplishment of the projects above
intimated.

THE Ministerialists have an easy way of meet-
ing unpleasant charges. Instead of replying
to facts they abuse the persons who state
them. Last week whoever opposed their
malt tax was an enemy to the war, and now
whoever exposes their diplomacy is a friend to
Russia. The part of Titus Oates is to be
revived for their benefit, and the questioners
of their wisdom are to receive no other answer
than a scream of " The Plaat, the Plaat !" The
artifice is too contemptible to deserve a serious
rejoinder. All that can be said in its favour
is, that it is venerable from age, and that it is
the customary resource of the weakness or
falsehood which has nothing better to urge in
its defence.

The accuracy of the information we gave
last week on the causes which led to the recal
of the Chevalier BUNSEN is not denied, but
we are accused of lending ourselves to the
designs of Russia by publishing it. By
" discrediting the Cabinet" we "render an in-
" valuable service to the enemy;" and it is in-
ferred that this country can only be preserved
from the ambitious designs of the Czar by the
foresight and energy of Lord ABERDEEN !
Does the journal which publishes this stuff
for the enlightenment of its readers suppose
that it will find credence even among them ?
Were we favouring the designs of Russia in
rousing opinion to the danger which menaced
Turkey at a time when the Ministerialists
denied that any danger existed, or did we
manifest Russian sympathies in insisting
on the expediency of the French alliance ?
The real friends of Russia are not those
who desire to keep the public mind cor-
rectly informed on the diplomatic intrigues

b)e

PRICE SIXPENCE.

which have been and still are carried on but
those who cry " Hush ! hush !" to every dis-
closure which would enable the country to
form a just opinion on the policy of our Go-
vernment, and who attempt to stifle discussion
by misrepresentations which, though malig-
nant, are harmless, as they are too absurd
for belief.
It is not necessary that we should say one
word as to our means of information. Every
journal of influence and connection has
sources of its own. The only question with
which the public is concerned is, whether the
information be authentic. if it be not, the
Ministerial journals would surely be able to
return some better reply to it than ridiculous
babble of " Russian inspiration." Our columns
sufficiently attest our independence, and we
are proud to acknowledge that our success is
mainly owing to the nationality of our aims
and views. If we have uniformly opposed the
present Government, it has been because we
knew that it was formed on a vicious princi-
ple, and because we foresaw that its action
must inevitably prove detrimental to the
public interests. Its capacity for misch4
does not yet seem exhausted. The divid
councils which have so mainly contributed to
the war still continue to render its prosecution
dilatory and uncertain, and to prevent thlit
impression being made on the policy of
Europe which a more decisive attitude would
assuredly produce.

GOVERNMENT DEFEAT ON THE
OATHS BILL.

Tali favourite axiom of M. TIMM, " The King
" reigns, but does not govern," is aptly illus-
trated by the present position of our Govern-
ment. It holds office, but it does not rule.
For the first time in our history the executive
and legislative functions of administration are
completely severed, and a Cabinet which is not
deemed worthy of being entrusted with the
higher duties of government exists merely to
carry on official business. In a House of nearly
five hundred members the Ministers were
on Thursday night defeated by a majority of
four. Henceforth it is apparent that they re-
tain their places, not from the confidence, but
from the sufferance of Parliament. The one is
denied—the other accorded to them.
The character of the debate was marked and
peculiar. It is known that in a body like the
House of Commons ostensible objects are not
always the real objects, and that measures are
considered in reference to their tendency rather
than to their professed purpose. There are
parliamentary as there are legal fictions, and
the issue raised often involves a more impor-
tant principle than appears on the surface.
The discussion on Thursday night was not
whether Jewish disabilities should be removed.
That question has for several successive years
been decided in the affirmative ; but it was,
whether the measure introduced as a new
Oaths Bill should be allowed to advance the
insidious designs of that party of which Mr.
GLADSTONE is the representative, by weakening
our Protestant defences, and abolishing the
ecclesiastical supremacy of the Crown.
In the admirable speech of Sir FIZDERICIC
TRZBIGER this design was distinctly charged
against the bill. It was " intended solely foe