London, Tuesday, June 21, 1853 

In the year 1828, when Russia was permitted to overrun Turkey 
with war, and to terminate that war by the Treaty of Adrianople, 
which surrendered to her the whole of the Eastern coast of the 
Black Sea, from Anapa in the North to Poti in the South (except 
Circassia), and delivered into her possession the islands at the 
mouth of the Danube, virtually separated Moldavia and Wallachia 
from Turkey, and placed them under Russian supremacy—at that 
epoch Lord Aberdeen happened to be Minister of Foreign Affairs 
in Great Britain. In 1853 we find the very same Aberdeen as the 
chief of the “composite ministry” in the same country. This simple 
fact goes far to explain the overbearing attitude assumed by Russia 
in her present conflict with Turkey and with Europe. 

I told you in my last letter that the storm aroused by the 
revelations of The Press respecting the secret transactions between 
Aberdeen, Clarendon and Baron Brunnow,* was not likely to 
subside under the _ hair-splitting, tortuous and disingenuous 
pleading of Thursday’s Times. The Times was even then forced to 
admit in a semi-official article, that Lord Clarendon had indeed 
given his assent to the demands about to be made by Russia on the 
Porte, but said that the demands as represented in London, and 
those actually proposed at Constantinople, had turned out to be of 
quite a different tenor, although the papers communicated by 
Baron Brunnow to the British Minister purported to be “literal 
extracts’ from the instructions forwarded to Prince Menchikoff. On 

June 16, 1853.— Ed. 

the following Saturday, however, The Times’ retracted its asser- 
tions— undoubtedly in consequence of remonstrances made on the 
part of the Russian Embassy—and gave Baron Brunnow a 
testimonial of perfect “candor and faith.” The Morning Herald of 
yesterday puts the question “whether Russia had not perhaps 
given false instructions to Baron Brunnow himself, in order to 
deceive the British Minister?”> In the meantime, fresh disclosures, 
studiously concealed from the public by a corrupt daily press, have 
been made, which exclude any such interpretation, throwing the 
whole blame on the shoulders of the “composite ministry,” and 
quite sufficient to warrant the impeachment of Lords Aberdeen 
and Clarendon before any other Parliament than the present, 
which is but a paralytic produce of dead constituencies artificially 
stimulated into life by unexampled bribery and intimidation. 

It is stated that a communication was made to Lord Clarendon, 
wherein he was informed that the affair of the Shrines was not the 
sole object of the Russian Prince.© In that communication the 
general question was entered into, the question of the Greek 
Christians of Turkey, and of the position of the Emperor of 
Russia with respect to them under certain treaties. All these points 
were canvassed, and the course about to be adopted by Russia 
explicitly stated—the same as detailed in the projected convention 
of the 6th of May.''* Lord Clarendon, with the assent of Lord 
Aberdeen, in no wise either disapproved or discouraged that 
course. While matters stood thus in London, Bonaparte sent his 
fleet to Salamis, public opinion pressed from without, Ministers 
were interpellated in both Houses, Russell pledged himself to the 
maintenance of the integrity and independence of Turkey, and 
Prince Menchikoff threw off the mask at Constantinople. It now 
became necessary for Lords Aberdeen and Clarendon to initiate 
the other Ministers in what had been done, and the Coalition was 
on the eve of being broken up, as Lord Palmerston, forced by his 
antecedents, urged a directly opposite line of policy. In order to 
prevent the dissolution of his Cabinet, Lord Aberdeen finally 
yielded to Lord Palmerston, and consented to the combined action 
of the English and French fleets in the Dardanelles. But at the 
same time, in order to fulfill his engagements toward Russia, Lord 
Aberdeen intimated through a private dispatch to St. Petersburg 

are quoted from Issue No. 21458, June 18, 1853.— Ed. 

>’ The Morning Herald, No. 22189, June 20, 1853.— Ed. 

that he would not look upon the occupation of the Danubian 
Principalities by the Russians as a casus belli, and The Times 
received orders to prepare public opinion for this new interpreta- 
tion of international treaties. It would be unjust to withhold the 
testimonial that it has labored hard enough to prove that black is 
white. This same journal, which had all along contended that the 
Russian protectorate over the Greek Christians of Turkey would not 
be of any political consequence at all, asserted at once that 
Moldavia and Wallachia were placed under a divided allegiance, 
and formed in reality no integral portions of the Turkish Empire; 
that their occupation would not be an invasion of the Turkish 
Empire in the “strict sense of the word,” inasmuch as the treaties 
of Bucharest and Adrianople had given to the Czar a Protectorate 
over his co-religionists in the Danubian Provinces.’ The Conven- 
tion of Balta-Liman, concluded on May 1, 1849, distinctly 
stipulates: 

“1. That the occupation of those provinces, if it occurs, shall only be by a joint 
one of Russian and Turkish forces. 

“2. That the sole plea for it shall be in grave events taking place in the 
principalities.” 

Now as no events at all have taken place in those Principalities, 
and moreover, as Russia has no intention to enter them in 
common with the Turks, but precisely against Turkey, The Times 
is of opinion, that Turkey ought to suffer quietly the occupation 
by Russia alone, and afterward enter into negotiations with her. 
But if Turkey should be of a less sedate temper and consider the 
occupation as a casus belli, The Times argues that England and 
France must not do so; and if, nevertheless, England [and] France 
should do so, The Times recommends that it should be done in a 
gentle manner, by no means as belligerents against Russia, but only 
as defensive allies of Turkey. 

This cowardly and tortuous system of The Times, I cannot more 
appropriately stigmatise than by quoting the following passage 
from its leading article of to-day. It is an incredible combination of 
all the contradictions, subterfuges, false pretences, anxieties and 
lachetés* of Lord Aberdeen’s policy: 

“Before proceeding to the last extremities the Porte may, if it think fit, protest 
against the occupation of the principalities, and with the support of all the Powers 
of Europe, may still negotiate. It will remain with the Turkish government, acting 

in concert with the ambassadors of the four Powers, to determine this momentous 
point, and especially to decide whether the state of hostilities is such as to cause the 

Dardanelles to be opened to foreign ships of war, under the Convention of 
1841.!!” Should that question be decided in the affirmative, and the fleets be 
ordered to enter the Straits, it will then remain to be seen whether we come there 
as mediating Powers or as belligerents; for supposing Turkey and Russia to be at 
war, and foreign vessels of war to be admitted, casus foederis (!) they do not 
necessarily acquire a belligerent character, and they have a far greater interest in 
maintaining that of mediating Powers, inasmuch as they are sent not to make war 
but to prevent it. Such a measure does not of necessity make us principals in the 
contest.” 

All the leaders of The Times have been to no purpose. No other 
paper would follow in its track—none would bite at its bait, and 
even the Ministerial papers, The Morning Chronicle, Morning Post, 
Globe, and Observer take an entirely different stand, finding a loud 
echo on the other side of the channel, where only the legitimist 
Assemblée nationale presumes to see no casus belli in the occupation 
of the Danubian Principalities. 

The dissension in the camp of the Coalition Ministry has thus 
been betrayed to the public by the clamorous dissension in their 
organs. Palmerston urged upon the Cabinet to hold the occupa- 
tion of Moldavia and Wallachia as a declaration of war, and he was 
backed up by the Whig and Sham-Radical members of the 
composite ministry. Lord Aberdeen, having only consented to the 
common action of the French and English fleets upon the 
understanding that Russia would not act at the Dardanelles but in 
the Danubian Provinces, was now quite “outwinded.” The 
existence of the Government was again at stake. At last, at the 
pressing instances of Lord Aberdeen, Palmerston was prepared to 
give a sullen assent to the unchallenged occupation of the 
Principalities by Russia, when suddenly a dispatch arrived from 
Paris announcing that Bonaparte had resolved to view the same 
act as a casus belli. The confusion has now reached its highest 
point. 

Now, if this statement be correct, and from our knowledge of 
Lord Aberdeen’s past, there is every reason to consider it as 
such—the whole mystery of that Russo-Turkish tragi-comedy that 
has occupied Europe for months together, is laid bare. We 
understand at once, why Lord Aberdeen would not move the 
British fleet from Malta. We understand the rebuke given to 
Colonel Rose for his resolute conduct at Constantinople,’ the 
bullying behavior of Prince Menchikoff, and the heroic firmness 
of the Czar who, conceiving the warlike movements of England as 
a mere farce, would have been glad to be allowed, by the 
uncontroverted occupation of Moldavia and Wallachia, not only to 
withdraw from the stage as the “master,” but to hold his annual 

grand maneuvers at the cost and expense of the subjects of the 
Sultan. We believe that, if war should break out, it will be because 
Russia had gone too far to withdraw with impunity to her honor; 
and above all, we believe her courage to be up to this notch simply 
because she has all the while counted on England’s connivance. 

On this head the following passage is in point from the last 
letter from The Englishman on the Coalition Ministry: 

“The coalition is shaking at every breeze that flows from the Dardanelles. The 

fears of the good Aberdeen and the miserable incompetence of Clarendon, 
encouraged Russia, and have produced the crisis.” 

The latest news from Turkey is as follows: The Turkish 
Ambassador at Paris has received by telegraph, via Semlin, a 
dispatch from Constantinople, informing him that the Porte has 
rejected the last ultimatum of Russia,’’’ taking its stand on the 
memorandum forwarded to the Great Powers. The Sémaphore, of 
Marseilles, states that news had been received at Smyrna of the 
capture of two Turkish trading vessels on the Black Sea by the 
Russians; but that, on the other hand, the Caucasian tribes had 
opened a general campaign against the Russians, in which Shamyl 
had achieved a most brilliant victory, taking no less than 23 
cannons. 

Mr. Gladstone has now announced his altered proposals, with 
regard to the Advertisement Duty. He had proposed, in order to 
secure the support of The Times, to strike the duty off 
supplements containing advertisements only. He now proposes, 
intimidated by public opinion, to let all single supplements go free, 
and to tax each double supplement '/.d. Imagine the fury of The 
Times, which, by this altered proposition, will only gain £20,000, 
instead of £40,000 a year, besides seeing the market thrown open 
to its competitors. This consistent journal which defends to the 
utmost the taxes upon knowledge, and the duty on advertise- 
ments, now opposes any tax on supplements. But it may console 
itself. If the Ministry, after having carried the greater part of the 
budget, feel no longer any necessity for cajoling The Times, the 
Manchester men, as soon as they have secured their share of the 
budget, will no longer want the Ministry. This is what the latter 
apprehend, and that very apprehension accounts for the fact of 
the budget discussion extending over the whole period of the 
session. It is characteristic of the compensating justice of Mr. 
Gladstone, that while he reduces the newspaper advertisement 

duty from ls. 6d. to ls. 3d., he proposes to tax the literary 
advertisements inserted at the end of most books and reviews, 6 
pence each. 

To-night the House of Commons will be occupied on two cases 
of bribery. During the present session 47 Election-Committees 
have been sitting, out of which, 4 are yet sitting, 43 having 
concluded their investigations, by finding the majority of the 
unseated members guilty of bribery. To show the respect in which 
this Parliament, the offspring of corruption and the parent of 
Coalitions, is held by public opinion, it is sufficient to quote the 
following words of to-day’s Morning Herald: 

“If want of clear aim and object, and still more, the tottering and quavering 
attack, be symptomatic of imbecility, then it must be confessed that this Parliament, 

the child of six months, has fallen already into second childishness. [...] It is already 
subsiding and curdling away into small knots of spiritless and purposeless coteries.” 

Written on June 21, 1853 Reproduced from the New-York 

Semi-Weekly Tribune, No. 847, July 8, 1853