From the English.

["New-York Daily Tribune," No. 3739, April 11, 1853]

London, March 25, 1853

Up to this morning we have received no further authentic news from Turkey. The Paris correspondent of the *Morning Herald* asserts in today’s edition, on the basis of information from a responsible source, that the Russians have reached Bucharest. In the *Courrier de Marseille* of the 20th inst. we read:

“We are in a position to communicate to our readers the contents of a note that was handed to the Sublime Porte by M. d’Ozeroff immediately after the departure of Count Leiningen and before Prince Menshikov’s brutal outburst made directly in the Divan. Below we give the principal points to which the diplomatic note refers. Count Nesselrode complains in the strongest terms that the Porte, despite its formal promise not to attack the Montenegrins, has waged a murderous war against that people, provoking the greatest dissatisfaction in the St. Petersburg Cabinet. In order to secure adequate protection for the Montenegrins and to preserve them from fresh calamity, Russia calls upon the Porte to respect the
independence of Montenegro.
The note also contained a protest against the blockade of the Albanian coast and finally culminated in the demand that the Sultan recall the ministers whose activity has constantly provoked discords between the two governments. It is said that, upon receipt of this note, Turkey was inclined to yield, albeit with regret, on that point which related to the recall of the ministers, particularly with regard to Fuad Effendi, the Sultan’s brother-in-law, who was replaced by Rifat Pasha, a partisan of Russia. The Porte, however, refused to recognise the independence of Montenegro. It was on this occasion that Prince Menshikov, without previously paying the Foreign Minister the customary marks of respect and in defiance of all diplomatic forms, presented himself in the Divan and insolently gave that body to understand that it had to
submit to his demands. Upon this demand the Porte invoked the aid of England and France.”

In ancient Greece, it was said of an orator who was paid for his silence that he had an ox on his tongue. The ox, namely, was a silver coin imported from Egypt. Of the *Times* we might also say that since the revival of the Eastern Question it, too, has carried an ox on its tongue—not, however, for its silence, but for having spoken. First this inventive newspaper defended the Austrian intervention in Montenegro on the pretext that Christianity was at stake. Later, however, when Russia intervened, it dropped this excuse and claimed that the whole question was merely a dispute between the Greek Catholic and Roman Catholic Churches, which left the “subjects” of the English Established Church quite indifferent. Then it emphasized the importance of Turkish commerce for Great Britain and concluded from that very importance that Great Britain could only gain by exchanging Turkish free trade for Russian prohibitive and Austrian protective tariffs. Afterwards the *Times* endeavoured to prove that England depended on Russia for its food supply and must therefore silently bow to the geographical views of the Tsar. This is a nice compliment to the commercial system glorified by the *Times* and a very droll demonstration that the Black Sea must become a Russian sea and the Danube a Russian river in order to lessen England’s dependence on Russia. When the *Times* was then driven from this untenable position, it fell back on the general assertion that the Turkish Empire was hopelessly crumbling, which in its opinion provided conclusive proof that Russia must at once become the executor and heir of that empire. Then again the *Times* wanted to subject the inhabitants of Turkey to the “purifying rule” and civilising influence of Russia and Austria; in so doing, it remembered the old fable that wisdom comes from the East, but forgot that shortly before it had itself asserted that

“Austria maintains in the provinces and kingdoms of its own empire a state of arbitrary authority and executive power, a state of tyranny unregulated by the slightest law.”

To crown its insolence, the *Times* finally congratulates itself on its own “brilliant” leading articles on the Eastern Question.

The entire London press, the morning and evening papers, the dailies and weeklies, rose as one man against their “leading organ”. The *Morning Post* makes fun of its colleague from the *Times*, accusing it of spreading deliberately false and absurd news. The *Morning Herald* calls the *Times* “our Hebrew-Austrian-Russian contemporary”. The *Daily News* briefly speaks of the “Brunnow organ”. Its twin brother the *Morning Chronicle* lays into it in the following manner:

“The journalists who, for the sake of the commercial importance of a dozen large English-Greek firms, proposed to hand over the Turkish Empire to Russia, may rightly claim for themselves the monopoly of brilliant intellect!”

The *Morning Advertiser* said:

“The *Times* is right in asserting that it stands alone in advocating Russian interests... It is printed in the English language, to be sure, but that is the only English thing about it. Where Russia is concerned, it is Russian through and through.”

Undoubtedly the Russian bear will not withdraw its paws until it is convinced that a momentary “entente cordiale” between England and France is coming about. Note now the following marvellous coincidence. On the same day that the *Times* tried to convince Lords Aberdeen and Clarendon that the Turkish affair was a mere squabble between France and Russia, the “roi des drôles” (“King of Fools”) — as Guizot used to call M. Granier de Cassagnac — discovered in the *Constitutionnel* that it was all simply a quarrel between Lord Palmerston and the Tsar. Truly, when we read these sheets we understand the Greek orators with Macedonian “oxen” on their tongues from the time when Demosthenes thundered his Philippics.

The British aristocracy, it is true, which is represented by the Coalition Ministry, would in case of need sacrifice the national English interests to its special class interests; in the hope of finding support for its sickly oligarchy in the West, it would gladly permit the consolidation of a youthful despotism in the East. Louis Napoleon still hesitates. His whole sympathy is with the Russian autocrat, whose system of government he has introduced in France, and his whole antipathy is directed against England, whose parliamentary system he has destroyed in France. And if he lets the Tsar calmly make prey in the East, the latter may perhaps let him make prey in the West. On the other hand, he is under no illusion as to the feelings of the Holy Alliance towards the “parvenu khan”. He therefore pursues an equivocal policy, trying to deceive the great powers of Europe just as he deceived the parliamentary parties of the French National Assembly. While he ostentatiously fraternises with the English ambassador in Turkey, Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, he wheedles the Russian Princess Lieven with the most flattering promises and sends to the Sultan’s court M. de la Cour, a warm advocate of an Austro-French alliance as opposed to an Anglo-French one. He orders the Toulon fleet to Greek waters and the next day has it announced in the *Moniteur* that this was done without prior agreement with England. While he has one of his organs, the *Pays*, treat the Eastern Question as highly important for France, he allows his other organ, the *Constitutionnel*, to assert that in this question Russian, Austrian and English interests are at stake, whereas France has only a very remote share in it and therefore finds herself in a completely independent position. Who will bid him more, Russia or England? That is the question for him.

Karl Marx