THE "TIMES" AND THE MANCHESTER MEETING. November 13th. SIR, I am constrained to beg a portion of your space to deal with some statements contained in the leader of the Times of Saturday. After saying that so far events in the Principalities had turned out "exactly as Mr. Urquhart stated they would do," it goes on," But is this going to last?" The paragraph of which this question is the commencement, concludes thus," We must retain our opinion that the campaign had better not have been undertaken at all." Having thus placed the question as if I had proposed, and the Times had condemned, the movement of the Turks, it addresses itself to the meeting at Manchester as follows: "On these pertinent questions, however, none of the speakers at the Manchester meeting expressed any decisive views." Certainly not, according to the report in the Times newspaper, from the peculiar process which it adopted; which was, to give the speech of Sir Charles Napier, and to suppress mine, even while heading the article-" Sir Charles Napier and Mr. Urquhart in Manchester.” The Times article of Saturday goes over the very points of that suppressed speech, of which the main feature was the expression of my opinion, that the campaign had better not have been undertaken at all; further illustrating the snare laid for the Turks, and the instrumentality of the Times itself in that deception. The object of the Times in suddenly turning round to parade the strength of the Turks, is the same as in its laudatory expressions applied to myself.* The strength of Turkey * "If the Russian Empire, so far from threatening the balance of power, or the liberties of more civilized states-so far from menacing the Turkish Empire, with absorption in its own—is actually to cope with Omer Pasha in the Danubian Principalities, the most difficult and alarming question of modern state politics will have been resolved at once. Mr. Urquhart may then claim such a triumph for political foresight as never before fell to the lot of man; but such will be the general satisfaction of Europe at the result that nobody we think we may promise him—will be at all likely to repine at his exclusive credit."-Times, Friday, November 11th. is now to be used as a goad for reluctant members of some Cabinet, in the same manner as in the earlier part of the proceedings the weakness of Turkey was used. Then it was fear for Turkey; now it is fear of Turkey. An English note is Russia's trump card. What matters, then, the suit in Turkey's hand? A deuce of clubs will cut an ace of dia monds. Why has not the Times its reporter at the theatre of war? -if not, because, first, it knows, or its master knows, precisely what is to be done; and, secondly, because it is thus free to fabricate such telegraphic despatches as may be required for the occasion-the occasion, I mean in London, not on the Danube, for it is there the world is to be lost and won. After abandoning the supposititious "series of events" of Sir Charles Napier, which had been contradicted, and which the gallant Admiral had suffered to go by default, the Times, for the second time, selects for approving comment the stereotyped passage of Sir Charles Napier, now for the third time repeated, respecting the faithlessness of the Porte in not fulfilling its promises to the Christians of Lebanon. It was only in charity to the gallant Admiral that I spared him on that head; but since the Times has determined to push the matter to extremity, and him into the breach, endurance may have a limit. Sir Charles Napier has expressed his readiness to attend all other meetings of a similar description. Of course, then, he will attend that at Glasgow, on Wednesday next, when I shall be quite prepared to deal with him upon that point as upon the others. The Times must have many readers gifted with common sense, and possessed of common honesty-at least it is as yet to be hoped so. What must such men think of the processes and purposes of a journal that assumes to comment upon a speech by wholesale, and complete perversion of its sense, and suppresses the speech on which it comments! And yet I see that there are persons who imagine the Times to be purposeless, and who explain perverse dexterity by blind infatuation. No, Sir; for him who has the key, the columns of the Times is the cypher of the Russian Cabinet. It was in Ashburnham House that Bucharest was set in flames. Meanwhile the people of England are gaping for telegraphic despatches, and cramming down their husky throats the stuff daily prepared for them amidst bursts of laughter, to vomit if they can or digest as they may. TURKISH VIEW OF THE PUBLIC MEETINGS IN ENGLAND. December 10th. [The subjoined correspondence between Mr. Urquhart and a Turkish dignitary of high rank, and now known as one of the ablest exponents of the feelings and opinions of intelligent Mussulmans, has been forwarded to us by the former gentleman for insertion :-] "MY DEAR SIR, I have just read in the Morning Advertiser, for the reception of several impressions of which, I presume, I have to thank your politeness, the reports of the different public meetings held in England, on the momentous events of which our country is at this moment the theatre, and in which you have championed our cause with the talent and warmth of feeling which have enforced our love and admiration. The effect which reading these speeches produced upon my heart is beyond my powers of expression, as much as the fit rendering of my grateful thanks is beyond my command of words. I shall, therefore, not endeavour to express my gratitude to you, which you have so long deserved, because you have a full title to the entire gratitude of my whole nation, whose warm feelings towards you have been many times expressed. I am, as you know, a Turk-a true one, neither more nor less: my education as a child of my country has taught me, in common with every Turk, to rely fully, entirely, on the honour and on the friendship of England. I have never, therefore, allowed a misgiving to cross my mind that that honour and that declared amity and alliance could fail, or could betray us in the hour of difficulty. Even the hesitation which has marked the conduct of a portion of the English Cabinet for some time past has never raised a suspicion in me that her feelings for Turkey were unfriendly, or that she was influenced by Russian predilections. It is impossible, I think, for an English Minister to be the friend of the Russians—simply because if he be so, he ceases to be a patriotic Englishman; even as that man is no Turk who loves not England, and, as I believe, no true Englishman can avoid respecting Turkey. I know well that the Russians are adepts in diplomacy, and you are right in saying that we are little skilled in the art. They have taken the highest degrees in this dishonest science, while we are not even students in the school of chicanery and duplicity which has its seat at St. Petersburg, but which, I hope, will ever be ignored at Constantinople. Our trust is therefore in the honesty of England-our distrust, the treachery of Russia. We have so often been cheated by that crafty Power, that without suspecting the good faith of our allies, we may well fear lest she should abuse their good faith and unsuspecting sincerity. The Czars of Russia are so eminently cunning, and the meanest lies cost them so little shame. To take them at their own word, they are as gentle and as inoffensive as infants. They have no ambition; they desire not conquest. As to ambition and desire of territorial aggrandisement, has not the will of Peter the Great positively forbidden them to his successors? They have only one defect; it is that they are chivalric almost to a fault. They are so happy, so delightfully in accord with all the people who have the privilege of being subjected to them, that they sincerely wish, whether other nations object or agree, to extend the blessings of their rule over the whole earth. If they make an aggression in Germany, it is simply to secure society; if they make an irruption in the East, it is to defend Christianity. You will search in vain throughout their conduct for any visible motive of self-interest; they only desire to save and protect, on the one occasion a brother despot, on another a brother in religion. It is in vain that we tell them, as the Greek Christians here continually do, and proclaim it to the world, that "we are happy under the rule of the Sultan. Our peace, our wealth, our prosperity, are preserved, and increasing daily; our religion is more free and more respected than it would be in any other country of Europe; we therefore beg you not to trouble yourselves to release us from dangers that we do not feel; we implore you not to protect us against a tyranny of which we are unconscious, and which only exists in your imaginations and in your own territory." The Russians are conveniently deaf to all this; they have resolved to protect and save the Christians, whether they desire it or not, and they will protect and save them. Should Europe feel incredulous as to such self-abnegation and generosity, the reason is obvious: Europe is too old and too corrupt to appreciate such lofty and noble sentiments as alone grow in the pure and virgin soil of chivalric Russia. As to any doubt of the purity of their intentions, any suspicion of other than a worthy motive in every act of the Czar, that is an intolerable insolence, that none shall repeat in their presence. They instantly cry out that their honour is attacked; and at the moment they insult and outrage every one, themselves demand satisfaction. "Oh that England and France, instead of undertaking negotiations in which they will infallibly be made the dupes of Russia, had once and for ever declined diplomatic communications with the Czar, and withdrawn their ambassadors from St. Petersburg! Had they done this, I am convinced that they not only would have been spared the necessity of sending their fleets,-I do not say into the Black Sea, but even to Besika Bay; the Czar would then have been stopped on the threshold, while by entering on negotiations he has been left free to creep on, step by step, to a position in which you cannot desire him to stop, a thing never difficult to do even by an Emperor of Russia-but to retreat, a thing a vast deal more embarrassing, and to which one cannot expect to see him submit with a good grace. Accordingly, it has been an object of search to open up a way for his retreat, and all Europe has set itself up to invent some satisfactory concessions. Concessions," say these "Conservators" of Europe, are the ruin of a sovereign when made to his subjects." Is the danger less when they are made to a foreign power? and can such concessions be reasonably demanded of the Sultan towards the Czar? In England they often apply the term "the Northern Bear" to the Russias; but the Czars take the double-headed eagle as the symbol of their power. Bear or eagle, they are alike animals of prey; and when one has such an animal in his neighbourhood, it is only by intimidating him that you prevent his attacks. It is not by yielding him a single prey, that may perchance stay his appetite for a day, with no other result than encouraging his return on the morrow, to the full as hungry and more audacious. To make concessions to the Czar would be merely to open the sluices which we pretend to be endeavouring to close. It would be neither more nor less than supplying him with increased opportunities and means for troubling anew the peace of the world, whenever caprice might prompt him. In the Czar's hands things change their very natures. What with other Powers would |