The Sun.
London, England, 1834-01-10 00:00:00

events to which the passages we are about to
cite from the columns of the Times principally
refer. The Duke of Wellington negotiated the
Convention of April, 1826, with the Emperor
of Russia. In his management of that negotiation
the Duke of Wellington states " he was abso-
lutely forbidden to make any arrangements with
respect to Greece, if' measures of force or violence
were the means by which that object was to be
carried into execution." Mr. Canning nego-
tiated the Treaty of July, 1827, with France
and Russia. In that Treaty the forcible inter.
ference of the three Powers, for the termination
of the struggle between Turkey and Greece was
first contemplated as a possible event. In three
months after the signature of Mr. Canning's
Treaty the Turkish navy was destroyed at the
battle of Navarino. In nine the Russian armies
crossed the Pruth. We trust at the outset
protest that the Treaty of Mr. Canning, which
contemplated forcible interference, did not
necessarily spring from the Convention of
the Duke of Wellington, in which the preser-
vation of peace was " the sine qua non of any
arrangement that might be entered into." But
for our present argument it is not necessary to
discuss this point. We are willing to concede
for the present to the Times and to the Whigs
that the Treaty of 1827, which the Times and
the Whigs applauded, followed naturally from
the Convention of 1826, which the Times and
the Whigs had applauded before. And now let
us revert to the accusation made by the Times
against the Duke of Wellington. " England,"
says the Times, " committed the baseness of
leaving the Turkish Empire to the tender mer-
cies of Nicholas, the Duke of Wellington being
fairly overreached." We assert deliberately
that the Times itself, from January, 1828,
when the Duke of Wellington returned to
office, to June, 1828, when the Russian troops
were known to have passed the Pruth, in-
stead of expressing distrust of the ambition of
Russia, professed devout confidence in her
moderation—instead of demonstrating the im-
portance of the independence of Turkey, exhibited
the utmost indifference at the near prospect of
her ruin—instead of exhorting the Duke of
Wellington to take up arms in support of the
Grand Seignor, laboured to invite him to aid
by military co-operation the efforts of the Empe-
ror. If we prove the truth of this assertion,
the Times will probably think it prudent to pre-
serve upon the matter in question its present
laudable silence. On the 29th of March, 1828,
the Times announces the publication by Russia
of her declaration, and proceeds to comment
upon it in these terms :
" Russia declares that; while she will right her own
grievances, she will prosecute with us, her allies, the
negotiations which the Treaty of London requires; that
is, she will respect—nay, she will do more—she will pro-
cure the independence of the Greeks, not only against
Turkey, but against herself and every other Power. While
Russia does this, we, the other allies (France and England),
may act with honour detachedly from her ; but we shall
have no cause to complain of her conduct, or to apprehend
her aggrandizement."
On the sth of April, 1828, the Times, after
an indignant invective against the abduction of
some Greek captives by Ibrahim Pacha, urges,
in explicit terms, an immediate recourse to hos-
tilities for the infliction of vengeance on the per-
fidious barbarian :
" If England threatenld Ibrahim, she is bound to punish
him ; if she tendered protection to Greece, she is bound to
repair the injuries which she failed to avert."
On the Bth of April, 1828, the Times no-
tices the offer of an armistice for three months
by the Grand Seignor to the Greeks ; and de-
clares that if the Allies shall be, or appear to be,
satisfied with so contemptible a concession,
" The inference with all reasonable men must he that
the Treaty of London is not any longer to be executed,
and that the whole policy of the British Government
under Mr. Canning has been abandoned by the Wellington
Administration."
On the 9th of April, 1828, the Times pro-
claims that the negotiations for the joint execu-
tion of the Treaty of the 6th of July having
failed, the three Powers are in consequence at
liberty to pursue separately all measures which
each may think best calculated to meet, " or
perhaps turn to account," the innumerable
difficulties attending the question. And- it pro-
ceeds to state, in language sufficiently distinct,
the measures which under these circumstances it
behoves this country to pursue
We are quite sure that England will be the slowest in
resorting to desperate measures, as she will be the last to
flinch from the contest. She will use, as we know she
is using, all honourable means to arrange a quarrel which
is pregnant with consequences far beyond the mere
' ignorant present.' But if, after a reasonable time spent
for such a laudable object. her efforts should fail, she knows
how to assume the dignity of her national character."
On the 17th of April, 1828, the Times
thus modestly asserts the unifortn correctness
of its statements, and the invariable consistency
of its opinions upon the affairs of Eastern
Europe :

" The public will do us the favour to observe, that,
amidst the varying reports on the affairs of Eastern Europe,
we have strictly persevered in recommending the same line
of policy, and have published statements, now acknow-
ledged to be correct, evincing the adoption of that policy.
We have said that England has no cause of jealousy against
France, and Europe nothing to fear from Russia."
On the 23d of April, 1828, the Times al-
ludes to a report published by a German paper,
that on the crossing of the Pruth or the Danube
by Russian troops, Austria, France, and Eng-
land will publish a declaration of neutrality ;
and proceeds to prove that so long as the sti-
pulations of the Treaty of London remain
unfulfilled we must necessarily be friendly to
Russia, and unfriendly to Turkey.
" If the three powers cannot bring the Sultan to see
his own interests in offeting such terms to Russia as may
induce her to suspend her hostile operations, they must
be the more forward to admit the right of the latter to
settle separately her own quarrel. They are not hound,
indeed, to assist Russia in the separate vindication of her
own honour or in demanding reparation for her separate
wrongs, merely because two of them, France and Eng-
land, composed part of an alliance formed by a treaty to
which her antagonist refused to accede. The relations of
three two to the Porte are now, to he sure, different ; but
as they profess to adhere separately to the policy which
dicta'ed the Treaty of Loudon, they cannot, of course, be
considered as neutrals in the ensuing contest till the ob-
ject of that Treaty is accomplished. In other words,
they cannot be equally friendly to the Porte, from which
they have withdrawn their Ambassadors, and with
which they have broken cif all diplomatic intercourse ;
and with Russia, with which they still continue the
most amicable relations."

On the 2d of May, 1828, the Times thus
speaks of a rumoured preparation of an English
armament for the coast of Turkey :
" The Turks have exhibited such a brutal obstinacy in
resisting the really kind and long sighted counsels of those
of the Allied Powers, whose chief solicitude was to pre-
vent the total destruction of the Ottoman empire, that it
is not at all surprising if England and France should have
at last resolved to despatch to the coast of Turkey an
armament so irresistible, provided with instructions so
comprehensive and so peremptory for a ibrcible execution
of the treaty of July 6, that nothing but utter madness
can induce the Grand Seignor to stand out for another
moment."

On the sth of May, 1828, the Times thus
avows its confidence i►► the faith of Russia, and
its indignation at the pertinacity of Turkey :
" We have always as'erted and approved the rectitude
of our opinion, that there was nothing to apprehend from
Russia. Had that Power been such as has been repre-
sented, her troops would h4vs long ago been at Copoan-