"Note. -- The correspondence, only partially given in former Returns, is here given entire, the omitted passages being marked by brackets, [ ] ."The name of the official, which appears as a guaranty for the fidelity of the return, is "J. W. Kaye, Secretary in Political and Secret Departments," Mr. Kaye being the upright historian of the War in Afghanistan. Now, to illustrate the real relations of Palmerston with Russia, against which he pretended to have set up the Afghan war, one instance may suffice for the present. The Russian agent, Vickovitch, who came to Cabul in 1837, was the bearer of a letter from the Czar to Dost Mohammed, Sir Alexander Burnes obtained a copy of the letter, and sent it to Lord Auckland, the Governor-General of India. In his own despatches, and various documents inclosed by him, this circumstance is referred to over and over again. But the copy of the Czar's letter was expunged altogether from the papers presented by Palmerston in 1839, and in every despatch in which it is referred to, such alterations were made as were necessary to suppress the circumstance of the connection of the "Emperor of Russia" with the mission to Cabul. This forgery was committed in order to suppress the evidence of the Autocrat's connection with Vickovitch, whom, on his return to St. Petersburg, it suited Nicholas to formerly disavow. For instance, at page 82 of the Blue Book will be found the translation of a letter to Dost Mohammed, which reads now as follows, the brackets showing the words originally suppressed by Palmerston:
"An ambassador on the part of [the] Russia [an Emperor] came [from Moscow] to Tehran, and has been appointed to wait on the Sirdars at Candahar, and thence to proceed to the presence of the Ameer.... He is the bearer of [confidential messages from the Emperor and of the] letters from the Russian ambassador at Tehran.
The Russian ambassador recommends this man to be a most trusty individual, and to possess full authority to make any negotiations, [on the part of the Emperor and himself], etc., etc."These, and similar forgeries committed by Palmerston in order to protect the honour of the Czar, are not the only curiosity exhibited by the "Afghan papers." The invasion of Afghanistan was justified by Palmerston on the ground that Sir Alexander Burnes had advised it as a proper means for baffling Russian intrigues in Central Asia. Now Sir A. Burnes did quite the contrary, and consequently all his appeals on behalf of Dost Mohammed were altogether suppressed in Palmerston's edition of the "Blue Book;" the correspondence being by dint of garbling and forgery, turned quite to the reverse of its original meaning. Such is the man now about to enter on a third Chinese war, on the ostensible plea o thwarting Russia's designs in that quarter.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ANOTHER CIVILIZATION WAR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~New York Daily Tribune October 1859
by KARL MARX
THAT THERE is to be another civilization war against the Celestials seems a matter now pretty generally settled with the English press.
Still, since the meeting of the Cabinet CounciI on Saturday last, a remarkable change has come over those very papers that were foremost in the howl for blood. At first, the London Times, in an apparent trance of patriotic fury, thundered at the double treachery committed -- by cowardly Mongols who lured on the bonhomme of the British Admiral by studiously falsifying appearances and screening their artillery -- by the Court of Peking, which, with deeper Machiavelianism, had set those Mongol ogres to their damnable practical jokes. Curious to say, although tossed on a sea of passion, The Times had, in its reprints, contrived to carefully expunge from the original reports all points favourable to the doomed Chinaman. To confound things may be the work of passion, but to garble them seems rather the operation of a cool head. However that be, on Sept. 16, just one day before the meeting of the Ministers, The Times veered round, and, without much ado, cut one head off its Janus-headed impeachment. "We Jear," it said, "that we cannot accuse the Mongols who resisted our attack on the forts of the Peiho of treachery"; but then, to make up for that awkward concession, it clung the more desperately to the deliberate and perfidious violation of a "solemn treaty" by "the Court of Peking." Three days later, after the Cabinet Council had been held, The Times, on further consideration, even found "no roomfir doubt that if Mr. Bruce and M. de Bourboulon had ... solicited the Mandarins to conduct them to Peking, they would have been permitted to effect the ratification" of the treaty. What, then, remains there of the treachery of the Court of Peking? Not a shadow even, but in its place there remain two doubts on the mind of The Times. "It is," it says, "perhaps doubtful whether, as a military measure, it was wise to try with iuch a squadron, our way to Peking. It is still more doubtful whether, as a diplomatic measure, it was desirable to use force at all." Such is the lame conclusion of all the indignation bluster indulged in by the "leading organ," but, with a logic of its own, it drops the reasons for war without dropping the war itself. Another semi-Governmental paper, The Economist, which had distinguished itself by its fervent apology for the Canton bombardment, seems to take a more economical and less rhetorical view of things now that Mr. J. Wilson has got his appointment of Chancellor of the Exchequer for India The Economist brings two articles on the subject, the one political, the other economical; the first one winding up with the following sentences:
