The Sun.
London, England, 1840-10-14 00:00:00

EVENiNG ,EMTION.

h! r. At the same time it declares that she has faith-
fully adhered to one line of conduct throughout
—that on which was founded the French and Eag-
lisli alliance. It was founded in opposition to Russian

designs—in &arm of their result. It was to prevent
her interference in the affairs of the Ottoman empire

—to aver; the danger of her protection. It consi-
dered the occupation of Constantinople by Russian
troops, under any pretext, a measure to be resisted by
every means at their disposition, even to the forcing of
the Dardanelles. After showing that Lord Palmerston
hal taken means secretly to bring about the treaty of
the 15th of July, to the exclusion of France, M.
Tiller.' note shows that that Treaty is to accomplish

every one of those objects which their alliance was to
have prevented, as ultimately fatal to European inde-
pendence. For instance, it authorises the interference
of Russia in the affairs of the Ottoman empire ; it ac-
tual!), stipulates for the occupation of Constantinople
by her tioops, and takes the means of affording her
the pretext, by war and internal convulsion. In a
word, M. Thiers justly remarks, it gives effect to
the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, which they were a:lied
to prevent any attempt to carry into execution. The
transactions detailed in this note commence by a pro-
po,tii ion or Lerii Palmerston, after the battle of Nezib,
to force the Dardanelles with the French and English
fl cis, should Russia proceed to Constantinople. To
Lord Palmerston's colleagues, as well as the country at
large, this proposition may evince his hatred and dread
of Russian projects. But if it was made in collusion
with her, and to enable him to assist her without coin-
protni4ng himself, of course he must have been instruct-
ed beforehand that Russia would not attempt it. Now,
when we look at the conclusion of these transactions
which commenced with this proposition, and to the other
quaky startling revelations of this note, we do not see
how we can credit this as a bona fide proposition. One
t riaa is clear—this treaty is an admirable instrument
for fte ;accomplishment of Russian ends. It has brought
a rupture between England and France—it is about to
bring on war between them, if the people of the former
kingdom do not step in. We have hitherto been loth to
gye credit to the grave charges brought forward
against Lord Palmerston, but are unable to resist the
evidence this document affords in their support.
(From the Morning Post.)
The official reply of M. Thiers to the recent State
Paper of Lord Pahnerston, on the affalrs of the Eest.
appear in our columns this day. This document is of
great length, and in point of style not unworthy the rc-
patation of its author as a literary man. It contains,
moi cover, some startling statements tending to impeach
the veracity of the English Minister, but on these we
are not, of course, in ir position to offer an opinion. The
justification of Lord Palmerston must depend solely on
hiniself. For the honour of our country we hope he
may be able to offer one that shall be satisfactory.
There are some passages, however, in the despatch
of M. 'Thiers upon which any man of common sense
is competent to foitn a judgment ; and, in order to
afford the means of doing so with the greater facility,
we will here subjoin the summary made by that Mi-
nister of the statetneres and reasoning which in their
more extt niLd ferin make up his present manifesto.

They are—
" 1. That, at the commencement of the negotiation,
the independeixe and integrity of the Ottoman empire
were understood, as France to this day understands them
—ILA as a territorial limit of greater or lesser advantage
between the Sultan and the Viceroy, but as a guarantee of
the Five Courts against offensive measures on the part of
Mehemet Ali, and against the exclusive protection of one
of the Five Powers.
2 That France, far from modifying her opinions in
opposition to a conste.nt union of views, intentions, and
expressions of opinion on the part of the Four Courts, has
always, on the contrary, regarded the Turco-Egyptian
qnestion in one and the same light, while she has sees the
Four Courts, although •at first at variance, afterwards
aoreo in the intention, of sacrificing the Viceroy, and Eng-
land, satisfied with saer.fice, coming to terms wi.h the
three others, and forming a union which, it is true, is now
most persevering in its views, and most sudden and alarm-
ng in its resolutions.
•• :3 That repeated sacrifices have not been made to
Frdat, in order to bring her over to the plans of the Four
Courts, since nothing more has been done than to offer
her, in MD to add to Egypt the Pachalic of Acre,
without flit: fortress of Acre, but with the hereditary pos.
.r.ession of the Pachalic, and to offer her, in 1540, the Pa-
kialie of Acre, with the citadel, but without the heredi•
possestian.
" 4. That she was not forewarned, as is asserted, that
tin; Four Courts would proceed without her if she did not
radhe:e to their views; that, on the contrary, she had rea-
son to expect to receive fresh proposals, when, upon the
news of the departure of Sarni Bey for Constantinople and
the insu.sree.!on in Syria, the treaty of the 15-h of July
was suddenly siped without her being previously informed,
and she was only made acquainted with it atter it had
been signed, and received the communication of it. only
two months afterwards.
5. That no one his a right to caunt upon her passive
_concurrence in the execution cf the treaty ; and if she has
insisted more especially upon the difficulties attendant upon
%he means of execution, she has never professed an indif- 1
ference either as to the end or the means—an indifference
vinich would admit of the conclusion that she would in no
case interfere in what might take place in the East ; that,
i:4l. II WTI it, she has always declared that she would with-
draw herself from the four other Powers, if certain resolu-
tions were an-Tted ; that none of her agents have ever been
authorised to say anything which might lead to the conclu-
sion that this isslat,:'d position would be one of inaction,
end that she has always ;ntended, as she still intends, to
preserve her full liberty in this respect."
The first of these proposi,ions appears to us to be
fallacious in itself, while the declaration that France
has acted throughout on the principle involved in it
implies a mental reservation discreditable to the French
Government, and belonging to the worst period of di-
plomacy. If the Cabinet of the Tuileries really believed
that by the phrase " to maintain the integrity of the
Ottoman empire" nothing farther was intended or un-
derstood than to prevent the march of the Egyptian
army on Constantinople, and the exclusive protection of
one of the Five Powers, we are quite sure that it must
have stood alone in its belief. That " E.-igla.nd," as
asserted by M. Thiers, and with Englund all
provident statesmen," entertained the same opi-
nion, is what we can never bring ourselves to
imagine, except on some stronger evidence than
that of M. Thiers. And as to France itself, the
very jealousy excited by the fear of an exclusive Rus-
sian protection—founded on the conviction that in that
case protection would be synonymous with occupation
—plainly shows that the word " integrity" had a dis
tinct and unmixed reference to territory. And further,
what could have been the object in checking the vic-
torious advance of Ibrahim Pacha upon Constantinople,
but to preserve the Ottoman territory from being cer-
tainly occupied, and ultimately alienated ? All pre.
sumption, therefore, is in favour of the supposition that
M. 'Thiers has misstated the interpretation affixed by the
French Cabinet to the epithet " integrity"; but in the
fact that if this interpretation was bonafide on the part
.of France all knowledge of it was withheld from the
other Powers during the whole negotiation we unfor-
tunately find something stronger than mere presump-
tion. To make an e.r post facto declaration of a
principle that had been concealed when this know-
ledge of it was essential, and the communication of it
.an obligation of honour, is a political coup de theatre
disgraceful to the Government that can resort to such
an artifice, and calculated to endanger the continuance
of peace, by destroying all future confidence between
the great Powers of Europe. The second assertion of
11. Thiers is that, though the Four Allies have more than
once changed their opinions as to the means to be em-
ployed for settling the affairs of the East, France has
ii. ver modified her views. What reliance may be
liaced on this declaration let M. Thiers himself point
out—" Never at any epoch of the negotiation has
France proposed any thing else, except a short time ago
when she advised the Viceroy to content himself with the
possession of Syria for life." A tenacious memory is surely
as necessa-y to a Minister of State as to that other class
of persons to whom the observation is commonly ap-
plied. To the third position of M. Thiers, that " re-
peated sacrifices have not been made to France," with a
view to secure French co-operation with the Allies,
Lord Palmerston supplies us with an answer in his offi-
cial note to Mr. Bulwer, and we presume that we are
justified in supposing that implicit confidence may be
p aced in it. His Lordship declares that the original
sh of the British Government was to confine Mehe-
met Ali's delegated
be
authority to
Egypt alone ; that
Count Sebastiani, on the part of his Court, proposed the
drawn division of Syria by a line to be from the sea
near Beyreut to the Desert near Damascus, and that
the territory south of that line should be
conferred on
the Pacha. This was objected to by Lord
and in September of last year the French A
submitted another pan, by which "
Mehemet n'Ablianador
should
be made hereditary Governor of Egypt and the whole
of Syria. and Got-ernor for life of Candia,
us nothinr but ?trail a and the district of Adana.rilTitt.
British Cabinet declined to assent to this proposal, bu;
with a view still to conciliate France, consented to waive.
its well-founded objection to any extension of Mehemet
Ali's authority beyond Egypt, and would join with the
French Government in recommending to the Sultan to
give to Mehemet Ali, in addition to the Pachalic of
Egypt, the Administration of the lower part of Syria,
bounded to the north by a lino drawn from Cape
Car-
sin to the souther.' end of Lake Tiberias, and to the
eastward by the Jordan, the western shore of the Dead
Sea, and by a line from thence down to the Gulf of
Akaba." Again the French Government demurred ;
and Lord Palmerston, still anxious to procure the con-
cert of France, made another proposal in May of this
rear, in conjunction with the Baron de Nieurnann, to
the effect that " the northern boundary of that part of
Syria. which should be administered by the Pacha,
should be drawn frem Cape Nakhora to the northern
end of Lake
its limits the fortress
'Tiberias so as to include within
this offer to his 4SS
of Acre." M. G uixot transmitted
Court, accompanied by the assurance of
Lord Pelrnerstrii,esthat it embraced the utmost extent
to which the A
could go. It this statement do not
rove,,that " repeated
ca:ling
in words. ,Iseterces were made, there is no
e lace, that France Thiers affirms, in the fourth
" was not forewarned that the Four
i ourts would proceed without liar, if she did not adhere
contrary,
Lc their views ; that, on the she had reason t
pest Lc) reee.be fresh proposals.' Now, the fact is