Karl Marx 
The London Press- 

Policy of Napoleon on the Turkish Question 

New-York Daily Tribune, 
Nr.3739, 11.April 1853 

The London Press- 
Policy of Napoleon on the Turkish Question. 

Correspondence of The N.Y.Tribune. 

London, March 25th, 1853. 

Until this morning no further authentic news has been received from Turkey. 
The Paris Correspondent of The Morning Herald, of to-day, asserts that he 
has been informed by responsible authority that the Russians have entered 
Bucharest. In the Courrier de Marseille of the 20th inst. we read: "We are 
in a position to convey to the knowledge of our readers the substance ofthe 

to note which has already been presented to the Sublime Porte by M. d'Oserof f 

immediately after the departure of Count Leiningen, and before the brutal 
‘sortie’ of the Prince Menchikoff in the midst of the Divan. The following 
are the principal points referred to in this diplomatic note. The Count de 
Nesselrode complained in the most lively terms that the Porte, in spite of 
its formal promise not to attack the Montenegrins, had carried on a sangui- 
nary war against that people, which had given the greatest dissatisfaction 
to the Cabinet of St. Petersburgh. In order, now, to secure a sufficient protec- 
tion to the Montenegrins, and for their preservation from new disasters, 
Russia would invite the Porte to recognize the independence of Montenegro. 
The note contained also a protest against the blockade of the Albanian Coast, 
and in conclusion it pressed the demand upon the Sultan to dismiss those 
ministers whose doings had always occasioned misunderstandings between 
the two governments. On the receipt of this note Turkey is said to have shown 
a disposition to yield, although with regret, to that one point relating to the 
dismission of ministers, particularly of Fuad Effendi, the Sultan's brother- 
in-law, who has actually been replaced by Rifaat Pasha, a partisan of Russia. 
The Porte, however, refused to acknowledge the independence of Monte- 
negro. It was then that Prince Menchikoff, without previously paying the 

Karl Marx 

usual compliments to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, presented himself in 
the Divan, to the neglect of all diplomatic forms, and intimated in a bullying 
manner to that body to subscribe to his demands. In consequence of this 
demand the Porte invoked the protection of England and France." 

In ancient Greece, an orator who was paid to remain silent, was said to 
have an ox on his tongue. The ox, be itremarked, was a silver coin imported 
from Egypt. With regard to The Times, we may say that, during the whole 
period of the revived Eastern Question, it had also an ox on its tongue, if 
not for remaining silent, at least for speaking. At first, this ingenious paper 
defended the Austrian intervention in Montenegro, on the plea of Christi- 
anity. But afterwards, when Russia interfered, it dropped this argument, 
stating that the whole question was a quarrel between the Greek and Roman 
Churches, utterly indifferent to the "subjects" of the Established Church 
of England. Then, it dwelt on the importance of the Turkish commerce for 
Great Britain, inferring from that very importance, that Great Britain could 
but gain by exchanging Turkish Free-Trade for Russian prohibition and 
Austrian protection. It next labored to prove that England was dependent 
for her food upon Russia, and must therefore bow in silence to the geographi- 
cal ideas of the Czar. A gracious compliment this to the commercial system 
exalted by The Times, and a very pleasant argumentation, that to mitigate 
England's dependence on Russia, the Black Sea had to become a Russian 
lake, and the Danube a Russian river. Then, driven from these untenable 
positions, it fell back on the general statement that the Turkish Empire was 
hopelessly falling to pieces,—a conclusive proof this, in the opinion of The 
Times, that Russia presently must become the executor and heir of that 
Empire. Anon, The Times wanted to subject the inhabitants of Turkey to 
the "pure sway" and civilizing influence of Russia and Austria, remembering 
the old story that wisdom comes from the East, and forgetting its recent 
statement that "the state maintained by Austria in the provinces and king- 
doms of her own Empire, was one of arbitrary authority and of executive 
tyranny, regulated by no laws at all." In conclusion and this is the strongest 
bit of impudence, TZie Times congratulates itself on the "brilliancy" of its 
Eastern leaders! 

The whole London Press, Morning Press and Evening Press, Daily Press 
and Weekly Press rose, as one man against the "leading journal." The Mor- 
ning Post mocks at the intelligence of its brethren of The Times, whom it ac- 
cuses of spreading deliberately false and absurd news. The Morning Herald 
calls it "our Hebraeo-Austro-Russian contemporary," The Daily News more 
shortly the "Brunnow organ." Its twin-brother, The Morning Chronicle 
heaves at it the following blow: "The journalists who have proposed to 
surrender the Turkish Empire to Russia, on the score of the commercial 

The London Press—Policy of Napoleon on the Turkish Question 

eminence of a dozen Anglo-Greek firms, are quite right in claiming for them- 
selves the monopoly of brilliancy!" The Morning Advertiser says: "The 
Times is right in stating that it is isolated in its advocacy of Russian inter- 
ests... Itis printed in the English language. But that is the only thing English 
about it. It is, where Russia is concerned, Russian all over." 

There is no doubt that the Russian bear will not draw in his paws, unless 
he be assured of a momentary "entente cordiale" between England and 
France. Now mark the following wonderful coincidence. On the very day 
when The Times was trying to persuade my lords Aberdeen and Clarendon, 

that the Turkish affair was a mere squabble between France and Russia, the 
"roi des drôles" as Guizot used to call him, M. Granier de Cassagnac, hap- 
pened to discover in the Constitutionnel, that it was all nothing but a quarrel 
between Lord Palmerston and the Czar. Truly, when we read these papers, 
we understand the Greek orators with Macedonian oxen on their tongues, 
at the times when Demosthenes fulminated his Philippics. 

As for the British aristocracy represented by the Coalition Ministry, they 
would, if need be, sacrifice the national English interests to their particular 
class interests, and permit the consolidation of a juvenile despotism in the 
East in the hopes of finding a support for their valetudinarian oligarchy in 
the West. As to Louis Napoleon he is hesitating. All his predilections are 
on the side of the Autocrat, whose system of governing he has introduced 
into France, and all his antipathies are against England, whose parliamentary 
system he has destroyed there. Besides, if he permits the Czar's plundering 
in the East, the Czar will perhaps permit him to plunder in the West. On the 

25 other hand he is as quite sure of the feelings of the Holy Alliance with regard 

to the "parvenu Khan." Accordingly he observes an ambiguous policy,- 
striving to dupe the great powers of Europe as he duped the parliamentary 
parties of the French National Assembly. While fraternizing ostentatiously 
with the English ambassador for Turkey, Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, he 
simultaneously cajoles the Russian Princess de Lieven with the most flatter- 
ing promises, and sends to the court of the Sultan M. De la Cour, a warm 
advocate of an Austro-French alliance, in contradistinction to an Anglo- 
French one. He orders the Toulon fleet to sail to the Grecian waters, and 
then announces the day afterward, in the Moniteur, that this had been done 
without any previous communication with England. While he orders one of 
his organs, the Pays, to treat the Eastern question as most important to 
France, he allows the statement of his other organ, the Constitutionnel, that 
Russian, Austrian and English interests are at stake in this question, but that 
France has only a very remote interest in it, and is therefore in a wholly 
independent position. Which will outbid the other, Russia or England? That 
is the question with him. 
Karl Marx.