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

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