Blackwood's Edinburgh magazine, Vol. 75, No. 462, April 1854Various
History
Blackwood's Edinburgh magazine, Vol. 75, No. 462, April 1854
Various
England -- Periodicals; Scotland -- Periodicals
simplicity of the statesman refusing to believe the evidence of his
senses. We have seldom witnessed so much prevarication, so much
barefaced misstatement, as have been exhibited on this question. It was
denied in the most positive manner in the House of Lords that Russia had
ever required from the Sultan the dismissal of his minister Fuad
Effendi; or that the resignation of that minister was voluntary. The
repeated warnings in the public press, the official communications of
his own agents in Turkey and Russia, went for nothing. The intentions of
the Emperor of Russia were in his eyes moderate and pacific, even so
late as the end of April. The arrogant language of the Russian Envoy at
Constantinople, the menaced occupation of the Principalities, were,
because Count Nesselrode pronounced them to be so, not merely
exaggerated, but “destitute of any foundation whatever.” The “_beau
rôle_” which the wily chancellor of the Russian Empire congratulated
Lord Aberdeen for having preferred, was in point of fact the meanest
subservience; and we are satisfied that it was to the conviction that
this “_beau rôle_”[9] was to be played out to the end, that we owe all
that has since taken place. The same truckling spirit characterised even
those acts of the Government which had the appearance of energy. When
our ships entered the Dardanelles, and anchored before Constantinople,
the country was made to believe that their presence in the Bosphorus had
no reference to the acts of Russia, but to the protection of British
subjects and property, and to the defence of the Sultan from the
violence of his own subjects at a moment when it was known that not the
slightest danger menaced either the one or the other. Abdul Medjid must
have felt indignant at the imputation thus cast by his friends on the
loyalty of his subjects, and even Lord Aberdeen’s own ambassador
declined to accept such an explanation of movement of the fleet without
a pretext. Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, while expressing his thanks for
the interest taken by the British Government in the preservation of
British life and property at Constantinople, said, at the same time,
that he applied his gratitude also to that part of the instructions
which authorised him to consider the presence of her Majesty’s squadron,
if he thought proper to require it, as intended to embrace the
protection of the Sultan in case of need: from whom the Sultan most
needed protection, no man knew better than the English ambassador. The
defence set up for the delays, the hesitations, and the inaction of the
Aberdeen Cabinet, was, it seems, the doubt entertained of the
co-operation of France. Now, nothing is more clearly shown, even in the
_Blue Books_, that the contrary was the fact. It is proved by the
despatches of the French Ambassador in London, and of the English
Ambassador in Paris. They show, beyond the possibility of doubt, not
only that such was not the case, but that every proposition of active
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account