APPENDIX. 307 ' in the "Times," in -which he says, " Certains paragraphed 1 " superflus et incompatihles avec le droit sacre du gouver- ' " nement de sa Majestd le Sultan y ayant dte introduits, ' " la Sublime Porte," &c. ; and again, " Pas un servitcur de ' " l'auguste famille Imperiale Ottomane n'oserait ni ne serait ' " capable de mettre par ecrit des paroles qui tendraient," ' &c I thought and think that if after these declarations ' made public in the face of Europe the Sultan's Minister ' had signed the Vienna Note, he would have signed a totally ' different document from the Note as presented to him ; ' although the words were the same. I could not, there- ' fore, approve of the step you took, though Palmerston • may have approved, and even suggested it.' Nevertheless, I believe, from the tenor of my father's correspondence with Sir James Graham, that even at the risk of breaking up the Government this plan would have been pursued, had it not been that, as I have before ob- served, and as is explained by Lord Aberdeen in a letter to you of the 2 2d of September : — 'When the Emperor gave his reasons for rejecting the ' modifications, we found that he interpreted the Note in ' a manner quite different from ourselves, and in a great ' degree justified the objections of the Turks. "We could ' not, therefore, honestly continue to give an interpretation ' to the Note, and ask the Turks again to sign it, when we ' knew that the interpretation of the Emperor was entirely ' different. The project, in consequence of this, fell to the ' ground. ... I am not at all certain if something of the ' sort might not hereafter be revived with advantage.' Your rejoinder was : ' If the project of having the Note of Vienna signed by the Sultan's Ministers is ever revived, as you seem to think likely, I hope I shall hear of it before it is finally agreed to.' The reference in your recent volume to an 'Austrian Note and its acceptance by the Emperor of Russia (which
