On this page
-
Text (2)
-
Untitled Article
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
publicly made . Amongst other things it has been said , that Prince Albert is present when the Queen grants audiences to her Cabinet Ministers , and that those Ministers have been obliged to sustain their views in the presence of the Prince . It has also 4 > een observed , that the Prince is in communication with every court save that of our nearest ally , —France . Now , these statements refer to matters of fact winch are simple and easily ascertained . In audiences between any , Cabinet ««•« ^ A ... _«* m . ^ ~
Minister or Ministers and the Queen upon affairs usually treated as confidential between Ministers and the Sovereign , has Prince Albeit been present ? Has he at any such interview taken any part , or not ? These , and some other questions of the kind , it appears to us , might v ^ ry properly be answered , either in Parliament or out of it , without waiting for the end of the month . It would not be equally proper to inquire , whether Prince Albert is in communication with foreign
courts , because at present there is no law or authentic order which wouLd forbid any subject from holding communication vr ith foreign courts ; and it would be an extremely incgmvenient manner of opening the question to begin with an inquiry tending to fetter the private correspondence of the Prince . But the fact that he is free , to exercise such a correspondence -without any official responsibility is quite sufficient reason for excluding him from interviews between the Crown
and Cabinet Ministers . On other grounds , his presence at such interviews would be , if not illegal , at all events against the spirit of the law and that usage of our constitution which cannot with safety be violated . The subject is a very plain one , and we do not know why the Times , in breaking silence upon it , should substitute the . " skimble-skamble stuff " which it recapitulates , instead of the plain allegations that have been advanced . 2 Fo doubt there
swer from Mr . Roebuck , or from Prince Albert , or from the Crown . With Prince Albert , except on a footing of courtesy , tie English public has no relation . The English people can ask for the bounty of tbe Crown ; but when the English people has to discuss with the Government a question of rigid , that discussion must be carried on with Ministers . The charge , in fact , is not one against the Crown or the Prince , but against Ministers . ^ If a Sovereign should introduce , at an audience with . Cabinet Ministers , some person who
lad no right to be there , tie responsibility which would attach to the continuance of business under such circumstances would lie with Ministers , and with them only . The charge , then , is an accusation against Lord Aberdeen and his colleagues ; and it is specific enough . It is , that when they have held interviews with the Queen they have permitted the presence of another person , whose immunities were of a kind to render his simple presence objectionable , if not dangerous . Let us repeat that we" do not believe the statements to
that effect ; but the statements have been specific , and the contradictions haTe been only specious . Attempts have been made to treat the assertion as idle , but an assertion respecting so momentous a matter—one so plain—and one so strictly within personal responsibility , cannot be go > t over by slighting it . When a clerk is accused of betraying his trust by embezzling his employer ' s money , he is not acquitted , either on the preliminary examination before the magistrate or upon trial , by treating the averments as idle , or bringing testimony to character in reply to distinct " counts" in
the indictment . So Ministers may be perfectly innocent of the charge now made against them . ; but they will be expected to disprove it by distinct evidence . If they can disprove it , the evidence must be more easy to procure , more satisfactory in its nature , than that which could be sought for the defence of any man under any charge whatever . They have their facts , their witnesses , the whole knowledge of the case ; everything within their control ; they have even a jury predisposed in their favour ; for the public will gladly learn that \ here is no truth , in these stories of Ministerial truckling to royal encroachment . The only thing the public wants to know is the truth ; and if Ministers can establish their innocence they will receive their acquittal by acclamation .
have been other idle stories besides ; but some statements were at all events distinct , and we ^ have named a few of them . It is equally untrue , that people supposed Prince Albert , as a Privy Councillor , to exercise a . decisive influence upon the councils of the Cabinet . We do not believe that anything of the k ' md was ever stated ; but if it had been , the statement of an absurdity by one man is not a refutation of a plain statement by another . The statement was , that tie Prince intruded himself . upon interviews between the Crown and the Cabinet , and forced upon the Cabinet an influence not natural to it . The statements have
been treated as absurd , because any project of influencing the English Government against the interests of the English people would be madness on the part of the Prince ; but surely , England of all places , is the country to remember that princes may have mad projects . One English Prince , who certainly had a better right to interfere than the husband of the Qaeen , conceived the idea of re-uniting England to Rome ; and there was a
period in his attempt at which exactly the same arguments about the "absurdity of the suspicion , the madness of the " project , and the disloyalty of ^ he imputation , might lave been used as in the present , case . For the word-disloyalty has been used ; as if the English people owed any allegiance to the Prince ; or as if he shared that immunity from personal accusation which is enjoyed by the Crown alone !
Mr . Roebuck goes so far as to say , that to ask the question would be equivalent to an imputation ; an extravagance of expression that could hardly have been expected from a man generally so exact . It proceeds upon the servile presumption that no inculpatory statement respecting the Prince can be anything but absurd and improper . Now , we say , the whole question is a matter of fact . If the fact is , as some have stated it , then unquestionably it ought to be known , and action ought to be taken . If the statements are untrue , and there is no fact , tie simple assurance to that effect would suffice . The question which Mr .
Roebuck was expected to ask , is one most proper to ask ; it is one that would not liave been supposed difficult for the man who suddenly crossquestioned six members of Parliament , on mere suspicion of their being engaged in " corrupt compromises ; " but it is a question which might not , perhaps , very appropriately sot open the lipa of a man who wears » silk gown , and still less ap- * propriately upon the lips of a man who may expect further legal preferment . Mr . Roebuck has mado his sacrifices , and wo do not see why the public are to expect any more . The public , however , will not look for its an-
Untitled Article
Note which the disinterested and courageous allies of Turkey had taien no pains to secure ; not to say , had laboured to avoid . In tie latest , ae in every stage of these prota-acted negotiations , we believe it will be found that Russia has owed alL her chances of a favourable issue to the allies of Turkey , while Turkey has been indebted to her own courage and skill in the field , to her own dignity , moderation , and clearsigltedness in the cabinet for the maintenance of ler just rights against open enemies and false friends . We invite attention to the following brief summary of Treaties between Russia and Turkey from 1711 to 184 J . Ttey will be found to present the
most striking as well as the most concise illustration of the whole Russo-Turkish question . The Ottoman Empire had attained its apogee at the close of the seventeenth century . Transylvania , the Banat , the Ukraine , were in subjection to the Porte . At that time Russia . was paying tribute to the KTogai Khans , who themselves were "vassal ? of tbe Grand Turk . In 1683 the Turkish army besieged Vienna . John SobiesM saved the city . The Austrians routed the Turks at Mohacz , and at Xienka , and compelled Turkey to sign the treaty of Carlowitz on the 2 Gth of January , 1699 . From that day dates , the wane of the Ottoman Power . l
^ TiU then Russia had on only two or three occasions sent ambassadors to Constantinople . One of these ambassadors was . expelled the empire with disgrace for having refused to conform to ; tha Turkish etiquette of being held by the arm at -tat audience . Compare this affront vith the attitude of Prince MenschikofFlast March ! The' Russians entered into the coalition against the Turks . They took Azof in 16 SJ 6 . That caty ' and its territory were ceded to Russia by the Treaty of Coirstadtinopijs . :
The Treaty of Fajmcsin , conclude *! July 21 , 1711 , when Peter the Great found himself in a disastrous strait at the Pruth , although purchased by Catherine I ., was a profound nnmuiation i& Russia . Azof was to be surrendered : Ta ^ nro ^ Kamenoi ' -Faton , to be razed to the ground , Rusna bound herself to withdraw her troops from Poland and to cease her embassy to Constantinople ; Unfavourable as the terms of this treaty were to Russia , Charles XII . persuaded Turkey riot to ratify it ; and as Russia for her part showed mo disposition to execute its provisions , the Russian
hostages were thrown into the Seven Towers . On the 13 th of June , 1713 , a treaty ] was concluded at Adbianople , forbidding all access of the Black Sea to the Russians . The Treaty of , CoxwrAimnojpub , of November 5 , 1720 , afarmfed the abolition of the tribute ( 40 , 000 ducats } which the CJzara were accustomed to pay to the Khans , of the Crimea . Turkey alone of the European Powers proved herself jealous of the independence of Poland , and Art . XII . of that treaty obliged the Czar not to intermeddle in the affairs of that
kingdom . Art . 11 released the Russian pilgrims going to Jerusalem from any tribute , and guaranteed them against any vexation . This was the first occasion of the two Powers entering Into , stipulations with regard to religious questions . The Treaty of Bkloradb , of September , 6 , 1759 , paralysed an some respects : that of Catlowitz . Turkey obtained Servia . It wai mutually stipulated that neither Power should give asylum to refugees , excepting to renegades . Russia had obtained successes by her arms , while Austria was sustaining reverses . Yet the conditions of this treaty were not altogether advantageous to her . Art . 9 boiind the Russians to employ only Turkish vessels in the Black Sea . Art . II . was the confirmation of Art . 11 of tie Treaty df Constantinople bf 1720 . In 1786 , the Russians having violated the Turkish territory in pursuit of Polish confederates , the Sultan , Mustapha , unfurled the Sandjak Sheftf ( Flag of the Prophet ) in the streets of Constantinople . On this occasion many Christians were massacred without distinction of nationality , and , no satisfaction was ever obtained for ihose acts of violence . The Russian Ambassador ( M ' . ObreBkof ) was cast into the Fort of the Seven Towers . Catherine II . sent a fleet to the Morea , wlich touched at England on its passage to the Mediterranean . The English only laughed at this fleet , as incapable of any service . Elphinstone , however , under the orders of Count Alexis Orlof ( who ^ was no sailor ) attacked the Turkish fleet of twenty sail of the line with his niae Russian ahipSk on the 6 th of July , 1770 , and on the following day destroyed the enemy in the Bay of
TREATIES BETWEEN EtTSSIA AND TURKEY . In the last ITote presented to the Porte by the Ambassadors of the Foui Powers , it was sti pulated that , in the event of a diplomatic pacification , all subsisting treaties between Russia and Turkey should be renewed . A discussion has been laised as to whether antecedent treaties between belligerent States are annulled hy war , and we think it has been conclusively established in the affirmative . Considering that the treaties imposed upo » Turkey by
Russia almost periodically since 1774 , whether under the pressure of successful hostilities , qn the plea of a religious protectorate , or on the pretext of a defensive alliance , have one and all served as stepping-stones to the continual encroachments , by fraud or force , of the successors of Peter the Great , it is clear that in urging upon the Porte the renewal of these treaties , or even in assenting to such a transaction on the part of Russia , the Western Powers virtually set their seals on the traditional policy of the Muscovite , admitted the dependence
of Turkey Cand this at the moment when she was fighting in self-defence , and expelling the invader by force of arms ) , rivetted anew the links of the testamentary policy of the Czars , and in their terrified hurry to patch up a dishonourable peace , abandoned and betrayed the cause they professed to defend . We are not surprised to learn that this article of the Note had undergone a modification before it reached Yicnna , and that , according to the interpretation of the Turkish Ministry , the renewal of the treaties was declared to bo " in the
sense of the integrity and independence of Turkey : " in other words , that the treaties themselves should be revised . wherever their operation was prejudicial to that integrity and to that independence . This significant modification was , with whatever ill grace , at once accepted by the Conference at Vienna , and , coupled with the demand that the evacuation of' the Principalities should take place within forty days after the acceptance of the terms , it bestowed a ftrtfco and precision upon the
Untitled Article
January 21 , 1854 . ] THE LEADER . * 61 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ M ^ M ^^ M ^ MMa ^^^ Mj ^ M ^^—^^ —^^^»—
-
-
Citation
-
Leader (1850-1860), Jan. 21, 1854, page 61, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse2.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2022/page/13/
-