The Sun.
London, England, 1863-05-02 00:00:00

'IRE.

(Front Correspondent of the Vines.)
CONSTANTINOPLE, April 23.
Mr. Kinglake's " Invasion of Crimea," was a
long time in finding its way to Constantinople. On
its first appearance, however, in the few book-
stalls which are to be found here, it was natural—
see:ng that the events with which it deals are still
fresh in the memory of the public—that it should
have been seized upon and perused with the interest
and avidity which the subject calls forth. In the
investigation of the details which have more direct
reference to the negotiations at Constantinople
which preceded the war there was nothing to indi-
cate a predisposition to criticise minutely or harshly
the statements contained in it ; on the contrary, the
fame of the author of " Eothen" pointed to the other
extreme; but his greatest admirers—and they are
not a few in number—have not been able to repress
their astonishment at the new light which is thrown
upon these negotiations, and seeing that some of
the persons to whom I allude were not only parties
to them, but active agents in their prosecution, ii
naturally follows that their version of the case must
be accepted in preference to his.
It is not becoming or useful in a letter of this sort
to enter fully into the discussion of these details; but
as Mr. Kinglake's book seems by its tone and in
the form in which it is laid before the public to
aim at historical precision and historical fame, it
would not be right to withhold certain observations
which forcibly present themselves on its perusal.
In that portion of the narrative that relates
to the diplomatic proceedings which occcured here,
Mr. Kinglake gives himself considerable trouble
in investigating the causes which led to Prince
Menschikoff's mission, He travels out of his path,
and goes so far back as 1830 to trace the link of
events which terminated in the rupture of the
peace of Europe; and it is surpassing strange that
he should have omitted to make the least mention
of the events in 1849, which so nearly brought on
a war between Russia and Austria on one side and
'Turkey on the other. These events exercised such a
vast influence on the policy of Russia, and bear such
direct relation to its subsequent proceedings, that I
must be permitted briefly to allude to the leading
features of the case.
It is well known that after the defeat of the in-
surrection in Hungary a body of Hungarians took
refuge in the Ottoman dominions, and were, to the
standing honour of the Turks, provided, not only
with a safe asylum, bat also with the means of sub-
sistence. Russia and Austria—flushed with vic-
tory, and eager for vengeance—formally demanded
their extradition, under penalty of declaring war on
the Porte. The Turkish Government, from the
first, resisted these demands; but it is not known
how long they would have remained firm under the
threats and intimidations of the two great Powers.
They desired to know, therefore, if, in the case of
their being involved in war, they might rely upon
the support of the Western Powers. Lord Palmer-
ston, then Foreign Secretary, did not hesitate for a
moment to promise the desired support on the part
of England; and it is well known that any waver-
ing on the part of the Turks was set aside by a pri-
vate instruction of Lord Palmerston to Lord Strat-
ford de Redcliffe (then Sir Stratford Canning), and
commsnicated to the Turkish Ministers in the mid-
dle of the night. This was confirmed in an official
despatch of the 6th Oct., 1849, in which " the moral
and material support" of England was pledged in
any emergency arising out of the refusal of the
Turks to give up the Hungarian refugees. The firm
attitude observed on this occasion, in which France
also participated, succeeded in averting the war
With which the Turks were threatened. The de-
mands of Russia and Austria were rejected, and,
although this led to a cessation of diplomatic rela-
tions with those Powers, subsequent negotiations
brought about a resumption of intercourse. Such
a defeat could not be but looked upon as a bitter
humiliation by Russia and Austria ; and I ven-
ture to assert that no one at all versed in the
question will dispute that the anger raised by
that defeat and that humiliation, although sup-
pressed for a time, was kept smouldering until the
fit moment should arrive to give it vent. Such an
opportunity was created, at the instigation of Rus.
sia, by the mission of Count Leiningen on behalf 11
Austria, having reference to the occupation of Mon-
tenegro by the Turks, to which Mr Kinglake refers,
but without connecting it in any way with the im-
portant link which I have described. This oppor-
tunity was also lost, for the Porte determined to
yield to the demands of Count Leiningen, and con
centrated all its powers of resistance to the subse-
quent mission of Prince Menschikoff. By that mis-
sion the Russians sought by a great diplomatic
triumph to recover their former prestige and to make
up for the galling defeat which they previously sus-
tained.
If I have permitted myself to enter in too general
a way into these transactions, it is because I am
satisfied, grounding my assertion not only upon the
opinions of eminent men who participated in them,
but also on the avowal of Russian officials and the
conviction of the public generally, that the defeat
of Russian and Austrian diplomacy in the matter of
the Hungarian refugees was the main and primary
cause and the most important link in the events
which brought about the eastern war. On this im-
portant subject Mr. Kinglake might have enlight-
ened himself by reference to the Blue-book contain-
ing the " Correspondence relative to the Affairs of
Hungary, 1847-49." His omitting to deal with this
transaction betokens a carelessness of research quite
inconsistent with the pretensions of his work and
the time which has been devoted to its publication.
-Without entering into a refutation of Mr. Kinglake's
account'of the negotiations at Constantinople, I would
point attention to the following inaccuracies:—He
says that Lord Stratford, at the outset of these trans-
actions, had been absent from his embassy " nearly
two years." Lord Stratford left Constantinople the
latter end of June, 1852, and returned on the sth of
April, 1853; consequently he had only been away
nine months; a well known member of the Russian
Legation is alluded to by Mr. Kinglake as
" Prince Garan ;" it should be " Gagarin." These
blunders are not of paramount importance, but
when they come to be added to the long list of
errors of which Mr. Kinglake has already been con
victed they contribute to divest the book of that
accuracy to which it lays claim.

In the absence of the Sultan and the most ener-
getic of all his Ministers—Fuad Pasha—the greatest
stagnation prevails in all the departments. The
Sultan's return will be the signal for a resumption
of activity and the prosecution of those reforms
Which Fuad has determined to effect.
Preparations are being made for the publication of
the Budget, vhiehi it is affirmed will throw a new
and favourable light upon the financial state of the
empire, in the r
eetive advantages which it will
make manifest.
have
Budget
the general reason to believe that I
have so far antieipae
provisions of the
forthcoming
pith of it, I may say, will be
alreadyof my letters that the
readers. It will not be amiss, however,
known to your
time, to examine this financial at the right
statement more in
detail, and to point out, not will what •
ll be done, for
predictions of such a nature in connexion •
with Tnrk-
ish reforms are apt sometimes to turn out delusive,
but what might be done with a moderate amount
of
goodwill and a proper administration. The now
loan will come also opportunely to relieve the w
Turks
of their most pressing liabilities, and enable them,
without having recourse to the ruinous and
mode of raising money from local sourees,to meet their
actual wants. While lam on the subject of this loan
I may mention the surprise which has been felt at
the announcement that the loan which has been
contracted for with the Turkish Government at 68
is to be issued by the contractors at 72—a difference
of 4 per cent.—which, in addition to the high com-
mission which they receive, will produce a profit to
the latter of half a million sterling. Seeing that the
loan issued in England in 1862 is only at 68, it natu-
rally gives occasion to some surprise that the invest-
ing public in France should give preference to a new
issue, and that at a price considerably in excess of
-what they might purchase on the London market.
I think, however, that the inducement which causes
this
preference is not difficult to be found, The suc-
cess of this loan is founded upon the fair prospects
of the forthcoming
hi.„ issued bank, the promoters of which
the loan, which prospects are enhanced

1 _
by the great success of the Ottoman Bank. One of
the principal conditions in the concession for the
back is that which provides for the reception of the
public revenue into its coffers. The public, therefore,
is led to suppose, and with some jastice, that the
institution will take good care to protect itself and
the holders of this new security by the retention of
such portions of the revenue as may be required to
meet the interest and sinking fund arising out of the
new loan.

MAY 2,186 a,