London, Tuesday, July 12, 1853 

The Parliamentary farce of Thursday last was continued and 
brought to a close in the sitting of Friday, 8th inst. Lord 
Palmerston requested Mr. Layard not only to put off his motion to 
Monday, but never to make any mention of it again. “Monday was 
now to go the way of Friday.” Mr. Bright took the opportunity of 
congratulating Lord Aberdeen on his cautious policy, and 
generally to assure him of his entire confidence. 

“Were the Peace Society '47 itself the Cabinet,” says The Morning Advertiser, “it 

could not have done more to encourage Russia, to discourage France, to endanger 
Turkey, and discredit England, than the very good Aberdeen. [...) Mr. Bright’s 
speech was meant as a sort of Manchester manifesto in favor of the tremblers of 
the Cabinet.” *’ 

The Ministerial efforts for burking the intended question of 
Mr. Layard originated in a well-founded fear that the internal 
dissensions in the Cabinet could have no longer been kept a secret 
to the public. Turkey must fall to pieces, that the Coalition may 
keep together. Next to Lord Aberdeen, the Ministers most 
favorable to the tricks of Russia, are the following: The Duke of 
Argyll, Lord Clarendon, Lord Granville, Mr. Sidney Herbert, Mr. 
Cardwell, and the “Radical” Sir William Molesworth. Lord 
Aberdeen is said to have threatened at one time to offer his 
resignation. The “vigorous” Palmerston (civis Romanus sum ‘**) 
party, of course, was but wanting such a pretext for yielding. 
They resolved that a common representation should be addressed 

to the Courts of St. Petersburg and Constantinople, recommend- 
ing that the “privileges demanded by the Czar for the Greek 
Christians should be secured to Christians of all denominations in 
the Turkish dominions, under a treaty of guaranty, to which the 
great powers should be parties.” This identical proposition was, 
however, already made to Prince Menchikoff, on the eve of his 
departure from Constantinople, and was made, as everybody 
knows, to no purpose. It is, therefore, utterly ridiculous to expect 
any result from its repetition, the more so, as it is now a matter 
beyond all doubt that what Russia insists upon having is exactly a 
treaty which the great powers, viz.: Austria and Prussia, now no 
longer resist. Count Buol, the Austrian Premier, is brother-in-law 
to Count Pouilly Meyendorff, the Russian Minister, and acts in 
perfect agreement with Russia. On the same day on which the two 
Coalition parties, the slumbering and the “vigorous,” came to the 
above resolution, the Patrie published the following: 

“The new Internuncio of Austria, at Constantinople, M. de Bruck, commenced 
by calling upon the Porte to pay 5,000,000 piasters as an indemnity, and to consent 
to the delivery of the ports of Kleck and Suttorina. This demand was considered as 
a support given to Russia.” * 

This is not the only support given by Austria to the Russian 
interests at Constantinople. In 1848, it will be remembered, that 
whenever the Princes wanted to shoot their people, they provided 
a “misunderstanding.” The same stratagem is now being em- 
ployed against Turkey. The Austrian Consul at Smyrna causes the 
kidnapping of a Hungarian? from an English coffee house on 
board an Austrian vessel, and after the refugees have answered 
this attempt by the killing of an Austrian officer and the 
wounding [of] another one, M. de Bruck demands satisfaction from 
the Porte within 24 hours.'*? Simultaneously with this news, The 
Morning Post of Saturday reports a rumor that the Austrians had 
entered Bosnia. The Coalition, questioned as to the authenticity of 
this rumor, in yesterday’s sitting of both Houses of Parliament, 
had, of course, received “no information;” Russell alone venturing 
the suggestion that the rumor had probably no other foundation 
than the fact that the Austrians collected troops at Peterwardein. 
Thus is fulfilled the prediction of M. de Tatistcheff, in 1828, that 
Austria, when things were come to a decisive turn, would eagerly 
make ready for sharing in the spoil. 

* La Patrie, No. 190, July 9, 1853.— Ed. 

No. 21478, July 12, 1853.— Ed. 

A dispatch from Constantinople, dated 26th ult., states: 

“The Sultan,* in consequence of the rumors that the whole Russian fleet has 
left Sebastopol and is directing its course toward the Bosphorus, has inquired of 
the Ambassadors of England and France” whether, in the event of the Russians 
making a demonstration before the Bosphorus, the combined fleets are ready to 
pass the Dardanelles. Both answered in the affirmative. A Turkish steamer, with 
French and English officers on board, has just been sent from the Bosphorus to 
the Black Sea, in order to reconnoitre.” © 

The first thing the Russians did after their entry into the 
Principalities, was to prohibit the publication of the Sultan’s firman 
confirming the privileges of all kinds of Christians, and to 
suppress a German paper edited at Bucharest, which had dared to 
publish an article on the Eastern question. At the same time, they 
pressed from the Turkish Government the first annuity stipulated 
for their former occupation of Moldavia and Wallachia, in 
1848-49. Since 1828 the Protectorate of Russia has cost the 
Principalities 150,000,000 piasters, beside the immense losses 
caused through pillage and devastation. England defrayed the 
expenses of Russia’s wars against France, France that of her war 
against Persia, Persia that of her war against Turkey, Turkey and 
England that of her war against Poland; Hungary and the 
Principalities have now to pay her war against Turkey. 

The most important event of the day is the new circular note of 
Count Nesselrode dated St. Petersburg, 20th June, 1853. It 
declares that the Russian armies will not evacuate the Principalities 
until the Sultan shall have yielded to all the demands of the Czar,‘ 
and the French and English fleets shall have left the Turkish 
waters. The note in question reads like a direct,scorn of England 
and France. Thus it says: 

“The position taken by the two maritime Powers is a maritime occupation which 
gives us a reason for reestablishing the equilibrium of the reciprocal situations by 
taking up a military position.” © 

Be it remarked, that Besika Bay is at a distance of 150 miles 
from Constantinople. The Czar claims for himself the right of 
occupying Turkish territory, while he defies England and France 
to occupy neutral waters without his special permission. He extols 

his own magnanimous forbearance in having left the Porte 
complete mistress of choosing under what form She will abdicate 
her sovereignty—whether “convention, sened, or other synallag- 
matic act, or even under the form of signing a simple note.” He is 
persuaded that “impartial Europe” must understand that the 
treaty of Kainardji, which gives Russia the right of protecting a 
single Greek chapel at Stamboul,’”° proclaims her eo ipso the Rome 
of the Orient. He regrets that the West is ignorant of the 
inoffensive character of a Russian religious protectorate in foreign 
countries. He proves his solicitude for the integrity of the Turkish 
Empire by historical facts—‘“the very moderate use he made in 
1829 of his victory of Adrianople,” when he was only prevented 
from being immoderate by the miserable condition of his army, 
and by the threat of the English admiral, that, authorized or not 
authorized, he would bombard every coast-place along the Black 
Sea; when all he obtained was due to the “forbearance” of the 
Western Cabinets, and the perfidious destruction of the Turkish 
fleet at Navarino.'*! 

“In 1833, he alone in Europe saved Turkey from inevitable dismemberment.” 

In 1833 the Czar concluded, through the famous treaty of 
Unkiar-Skelessi, a defensive alliance with Turkey, by which foreign 
fleets were forbidden to approach Constantinople,’ by which 
Turkey was saved only from dismemberment, in order to be saved 
entire for Russia. 

“In 1839 he took the initiative with the other Powers in the propositions which, 
executed in common, prevented the Sultan from seeing his throne give place to a 
new Arabian Empire.” 

That is to say, in 1839 he made the other Powers take the 
initiative in the destruction of the Egyptian fleet, and in the 
reduction to impotence of the only man* who might have 
converted Turkey into a vital danger to Russia, and replaced a 
“dressed up turban” by a real head. 

“The fundamental principle of the policy of our august master has always been 
to maintain, as long as possible, the status quo of the East.” 

Just so. He has carefully preserved the decomposition of the 
Turkish State, under the exclusive guardianship of Russia. 

It must be granted that a more ironical document the East has 
never dared to throw in the face of the West. But its author is 

Nesselrode—a nettle, at once, and a rod.* It is a document, 
indeed, of Europe’s degradation under the rod of counter- 
revolution. Revolutionists may congratulate the Czar on this 
masterpiece. If Europe withdraws, she withdraws not with a simple 
defeat, but passes, as it were, under furcae Caudinae.'** 

While the English Queen” is, at this moment, feasting Russian 
Princesses; while an enlightened English aristocracy and 
bourgeoisie lie prostrate before the barbarian autocrat, the English 
proletariat alone protests against the impotency and degradation 
of the ruling classes. On the 7th July the Manchester School held a 
great Peace meeting in the Odd-Fellows Hall, at Halifax. Crossley, 
M.P. for Halifax, and all the other “great men” of the School had 
especially flocked to the meeting from “town.”° The hall was 
crowded, and many thousands could obtain no admittance. Ernest 
Jones (whose agitation in the factory districts is gloriously 
progressing, as you may infer from the number of Charter 
petitions presented to Parliament, and from the attacks of the 
middle-class provincial press), was, at the time, at Durham. The 
Chartists of Halifax, the place where he has twice been nominated 
and declared by show of hands’ as a candidate for the House of 
Commons, summoned him by electric telegraph, and he appeared 
just in time for the meeting. Already the gentlemen of the 
Manchester School believed they would carry their resolution, and 
would be able to bring home the support of the manufacturing 
districts to their good Aberdeen, when Ernest Jones rose and put 
an amendment pledging the people to war, and declaring that 
before liberty was established peace was a crime. There ensued a 
most violent discussion, but the amendment of Ernest Jones was 
carried by an immense majority. 

The clauses of the India Bill are passing one by one, the debate 
scarcely offering any remarkable features,° except the inconsisten- 
cy of the so-called India Reformers. There is, for instance, my 
Lord Jocelyn, M.P., who has made a kind of political livelihood by 
his periodical denunciation of Indian wrongs, and of the 
maladministration of the East India Company. What do you think 
his amendment amounted to? To give the East India Company a 
lease for 10 years. Happily, it compromised no one but himself. 
There is another professional “Reformer,” Mr. Jos. Hume, who, 

“ The debate in the House of Commons on July 8, 1853.— Ed. 

during his long Parliamentary life, has succeeded in transforming 
opposition itself into a particular manner of supporting the 
ministry. He proposed not to reduce the number of East India 
Directors from 24 to 18. The only amendment of common sense, 
yet agreed to, was that of Mr. Bright, exempting Directors 
nominated by the Government from the qualification in East India 
Stock, imposed by the Directors elected by the Court of 
Proprietors. Go through the pamphlets published by the East 
Indian Reform Association,'* and you will feel a similar sensation 
as when, hearing of one great act of accusation against Bonaparte, 
devised in common by Legitimists, Orleanists, Blue and Red 
Republicans, and even disappointed Bonapartists. Their only merit 
until now has been to draw public attention to Indian affairs in 
general, and further they cannot go in their present form of 
eclectic opposition. For instance, while they attack the doings of 
the English aristocracy in India, they protest against the destruc- 
tion of the Indian aristocracy of native princes. 

After the British intruders had once put their feet on India, and 
made up their mind to hold it, there remained no alternative but 
to break the power of the native princes by force or by intrigue. 
Placed with regard to them in similar circumstances as the ancient 
Romans with regard to their allies, they followed in the track of 
Roman politics. “It was,” says an English writer, “a system of 
fattening allies, as we fatten oxen, till they were worthy of being 
devoured.” After having won over their allies in the way of 
ancient Rome, the East India Company executed them in the 
modern manner of Change-Alley.' In order to discharge the 
engagements they had entered into with the Company, the native 
princes were forced to borrow enormous sums from Englishmen 
at usurious interest. When their embarrassment had reached the 
highest pitch, the creditor got inexorable, “the screw was turned” 
and the princes were compelled either to concede their territories 
amicably to the Company, or to begin war; to become pensioners 
on their usurpers in one case, or to be deposed as traitors in the 
other. At this moment the native States occupy an area of 699,961 
square miles, with a population of 52,941,263 souls, being, 
however, no longer the allies, but only the dependents of the 
British Government, upon multifarious conditions, and under the 
various forms of the subsidiary' and of the protective systems. 
These systems have in common the relinquishment, by the native 
States of the right of self-defense, of maintaining diplomatic 
relations, and of settling the disputes among themselves without 
the interference of the Governor-General. All of them have to pay 

a tribute, either in hard cash, or in a contingent of armed forces 
commanded by British officers. The final absorption or annexa- 
tion of these native States is at present eagerly controverted 
between the Reformers who denounce it as a crime, and the men 
of business who excuse it as a necessity. 

In my opinion the question itself is altogether improperly put. 
As to the native States they virtually ceased to exist from the 
moment they became subsidiary to or protected by the Company. 
If you divide the revenue of a country between two governments, 
you are sure to cripple the resources of the one and _ the 
administration of both. Under the present system the native States 
succumb under the double incubus of their native Administration 
and the tributes and inordinate military establishments imposed 
upon them by the Company. The conditions under which they are 
allowed to retain their apparent independence are at the same 
time the conditions of a permanent decay, and of an utter 
inability of improvement. Organic weakness is the constitutional 
law of their existence, as of all existences living upon sufferance. It 
is, therefore, not the native States, but the native Princes and 
Courts about whose maintenance the question revolves. Now, is it 
not a strange thing that the same men who denounce “the 
barbarous splendors of the Crown and Aristocracy of England” 
are shedding tears at the downfall of Indian Nabobs, Rajahs, and 
Jagheerdars, the great majority of whom possess not even the 
prestige of antiquity, being generally usurpers of very recent date, 
set up by English intrigue! There exists in the whole world no 
despotism more ridiculous, absurd and childish than that of those 
Schazenans and Schariars of the Arabian Nights. The Duke of 
Wellington, Sir J. Malcolm, Sir Henry Russell, Lord Ellenborough, 
General Briggs, and other authorities, have pronounced in favor 
of the status quo; but on what grounds? Because the native troops 
under English rule want employment in the petty warfares with 
their own countrymen, in order to prevent them from turning 
their strength against their own European masters. Because the 
existence of independent States gives occasional employment to 
the English troops. Because the hereditary princes are the most 
servile tools of English despotism, and check the rise of those bold 
military adventurers with whom India has and ever will abound. 
Because the independent territories afford a refuge to all 
discontented and enterprising native spirits. Leaving aside all these 
arguments, which state in so many words that the native princes 
are the strongholds of the present abominable English system and 
the greatest obstacles to Indian progress, [ come to Sir Thomas 

Munro and Lord Elphinstone, who were at least men of superior 
genius, and of real sympathy for the Indian people. They think 
that without a native aristocracy there can be no energy in any 
other class of the community, and that the subversion of that 
aristocracy will not raise but debase a whole people. They may be 
right as long as the natives, under direct English rule, are 
systematically excluded from all superior offices, military and civil. 
Where there can be no great men by their own exertion, there 
must be great men by birth, to leave to a conquered people some 
greatness of their own. That exclusion, however, of the native 
people from the English territory, has been effected only by the 
maintenance of the hereditary princes in the so-called indepen- 
dent territories. And one of these two concessions had to be made 
to the native army, on whose strength all British rule in India 
depends. I think we may trust the assertion of Mr. Campbell, that 
the native Indian Aristocracy are the least enabled to fill higher 
offices; that for all fresh requirements it is necessary to create a 
fresh class; and that 

“from the acuteness and aptness to learn of the inferior classes, this can be 
done in India as it can be done in no other country.” * 

The native princes themselves are fast disappearing by the 
extinction of their houses; but, since the commencement of this 
century, the British Government has observed the policy of 
allowing them to make heirs by adoption, or of filling up their 
vacant seats with puppets of English creation. The great Gover- 
nor-General, Lord Dalhousie, was the first to protest openly 
against this system. Were not the natural course of things 
artificially resisted, there would be wanted neither wars nor 
expenses to do away with the native princes. 

As to the pensioned princes, the £2,468,969 assigned to them by 
the British Government on the Indian revenue is a most heavy 
charge upon a people living on rice, and deprived of the first 
necessaries of life. If they are good for any thing, it is for 
exhibiting Royalty in its lowest stage of degradation and ridicule. 
Take, for instance, the Great Mogul,” the descendant of Timour 
Tamerlane '*: He is allowed £120,000 a year. His authority does 
not extend beyond the walls of his palace, within which the Royal 
idiotic race, left to itself, propagates as freely as rabbits. Even the 
police of Delhi is held by Englishmen above his contro]. There he 

sits on his throne, a little shriveled yellow old man, trimmed in a 
theatrical dress, embroidered with gold, much like that of the 
dancing girls of Hindostan. On certain State occasions, the 
tinsel-covered puppet issues forth to gladden the hearts of the 
loyal. On his days of reception strangers have to pay a fee, in the 
form of guineas, as to any other saltimbanque exhibiting himself in 
public; while he, in his turn, presents them with turbans, 
diamonds, etc. On looking nearer at them, they find that the 
Royal diamonds are, like so many pieces of ordinary glass, grossly 
painted and imitating as roughly as possible the precious stones, 
and jointed so wretchedly, that they break in the hand like 
gingerbread. 

The English money-lenders, combined with the English Aristoc- 
racy, understand, we must own, the art of degrading Royalty, 
reducing it to the nullity of constitutionalism at home, and to the 
seclusion of etiquette abroad. And now, here are the Radicals, 
exasperated at this spectacle! * 

Written on July 12, 1853 

Tribune, No. 3828, July 25, 1853; re- Daily Tribune