TIIE THIERS AND PAL.MERSTON COMIE■TONDENCE.

M. '['hers has addressed a long note to the French. Anthassador in London, in reply to Lord Palmerston's note of the 30:1s of August:

it bears date the :Id October, hut appears to have reache I England no earlier than the 3th. Lord Palmerstoa had retraced the history of ne- gotiations between France awl Eugland on the Eastern question, for

the purpose of show jug that France had withdrawn from alliance with the Four Powers, not that they haul abandoned her. M. Tillers also retraces the history of' all:airs in a similar way, for the purpose of proving a totally opposite conclusion. He sets out with a clever condensation of Lord Palmerston's note, which brings out all the main points with simplicity and clearness- " That Great Britain, boing completely disinterested in the question of the East, has pursued one sole object-0.o: independence and integrity of the Otto-

man empire. This was the oht 1r..1w.,1 by her to all the Courts, adopted.

by them, pursued by them all, and by 1' mice as well as by the other Pow.ers. with this object in view, it was necessary T., reduce the excessive pretensions of the Viceroy of Egypt within uarroXer limits; it was necessary to remove the possessions and the armies of. that an.,:t was vass.il as tar 1;1 possible front the Taurtis. The best nseans was it., 1,1.1ce the liesert bet %seen time Sultan and the Paslia; that is, t a ta.sttict Mt.1;cm,r ...tn to Egypt, and to restore Syria to the Sultan Albin]. notild. The Syrian Piss:et would then have served as a harrier between the 5w.:0 stet a, an:.1 seeored the Ottoman, empire, and Europe, interested in the safety of that empire, against the ambition of the Egyptian family.'

" That such has been the declaration of England at every period of this negotiation. France, by the this etive note sigoed at Constantinople on the :2;'m hi of July 1832, an .1 lu xc eirestla- addressed on the 17th of the same in 311th to all the Courts—Fr:11We had appeared to adhere to the common principle, by proclaiming as absolutely as the mine ("billets the independence and. integrity of the Ottoman empire. But elle subsequently departed irons this. principle, by demanding in favour of the Y ieeroy dismemberment of the empire. sliich , IS III compatithe with its existence. I )trous et seeming tne cooperation of France, the Four Powers Nvlo, hare signed the treety of the 15tb ed July have made reiterated attempts to liming her to :ioni ill their ciesus. They Lave even made considerable sacrifices to her. for they added to Egypt. hereditarily granted, the Pashalic of Acre without the fortress. and they at con- sented to join the fortress itself to their form or proposal. But ail these sacri- i■Ve8 were of no avail ; Eraoce persisted in her dcparture from the principle which the five Cabinets kid thomilit it their ;lute to pro:loins in common.'

" That ' the other Courts could not follow her in this coerse. llowever they might desire to semi', her coiiperation. they were driren to separate from

her, and to sign an act which ought not to surprise is r. Fraser had been warned more than onee th;tt if they ■thl 11t come to an , ; it would, after all, be necessary for the Four Powers to settle a u xx. . ii di the

Five could not tig,ree.' " That ' Lord Palmerston bad. in fact. carefully rt , it;ed to the French

Ambassador that the proposal, sin;:e c;,;.t.,Thea II:. tl-e,tty of the 15th of Jule, was his ultimatum. moi that. ;t t:.:, rofosed. he should

make no other. It Was I. 31:j 1: 1 0;10111311

empire to perish by too protrasited hesitation. The tiLe mits eiti.itet be

accused of any intvation of oih:;t:in; l'r.nce :;. Foal. Cabi- nets, having agreed upon a qusettion et' the itioeic. could not make :111 indefinite sacrifice of tht ir vlove and their psi slis.nterested in- tentions to a fifth.'

" That, 1110TioVel% svlmil4 they ndls: tlms. the feet.; Cdds tm remfMaered. that France liad in the month et September I ti. proposed a plan sei arrange- ment through her Ambassatier at Leillon. found, upon nearly all SAlllt` basis as the trcaty of the 15th of July ; that subsequently..., bile site obleeted to the plan put forward by England. she had tubed:sod tbs... setting aside the diflieulty and the danger of the means of es, entioii. that yi,,n ii etch be ineontestibly

prefi..ralde to an v other ; ii; tt on es ory 0.. esioe. she had manifested

the intention of opposihg 31.1 ■• 111 :111.1et CNATUti011. The four Cabinets Lad therelore. 111.:1 if. f.:::11 11:06 \ cs peculiar to

herself, she rertisea to join then: its at,..a1.17,ii cue re:,: against Mehemet Ali,

she would at least put forward no ,,homele to their efforts. and that she would even second them by the exercise of her moral influence at Alexandria. The Four Powers still hope that, n hen the treaty of the 15th of July has been ful- filled, France will again unite with. them to secure definitively the maintenance of the Ottoman empire.'

The foregoing prf".eis, however, fails to pat le-'rd Palmerston's charge against France, el itsconsisteuey. in so foreible a way as it stood in his Lordship's note. We therefore quote that passage, in which be shows the groundlessness of the complaints of France from the original- " In the early stages of the negotiation, the declarations of principle made by the Government of France led her Majesty's Government to imagine that the two Governments could not but agree as to the means of carrying their common principles into execution. If the intentions and opinions of the French Government upon the means of execution differed, even in the outset of the negotiations, from those of the British Government, then France has no right to represent as an unexpected schism between England and France a difference which the French Government knew all along to exist. If the in- tentions and opinions of the French Governtnent as to the means of execution have undergone a change since the negotiations begun, then France has no right to impute to Great Britain a divergence of policy, which arises from a ehauge on the part of France, and not from a change on the part of Great Britain. But in any case, when four out of the five Powers timid themselves agreed upon one course, and when the fifth had determined to pursue a course entirely different, it could not reasonably be expected that the four should, in deference to the fifth, give up opinions in which they were daily more and more confirmed, and which related to a matter of vital importance to the great cud permanent interests of Europe."

M. Thiers reduces the results of Lord Palmerston's statement to the following propositions-

" That France has been inconsistent ; " That she had desired, and desires no longer, the integrity and independence of the Ottoman empire ; " That the Four Powers have made repeated sacrifices to her views;

That they at last offered her an ultimatum, based upon a former proposal of her own Ambassador ;

"That they did not proceed further until that ultimatum had been refused. "That they have reason to be surprised at the manner in which Prance has received the treaty of the 15th of July, since, in accordance with her own de- clarations, it might be expected that she would have given to this treaty more than a passive assent, and at least her moral support."

N. Thiers proceeds to rebut these charges, by a recapitulation of the steps of the conduct of France throughout the negotiations. Be makes the question between France and England turn upon the acceptation in which the phrase of " the integrity of the Ottoman empire" is to be understood. At first, he says, it meant, that Constan- tinople was to be defended, on the one hand from the threatened march of Ibrahim Pasha, and on the other from the exclusive protection and occupation by a Russian army. In that view France fully concurred. Austria and Prussia also agreed to the views of France and England ; but Russia held back, recommendiag uou-intervention. The contem- plated danger to Constantinople was postponed when Ibrahim suspended his victorious march : there were then two opposing parties—the con- 9uered Sultan, and the conquering Ibrahim ; but both, " thanks to the intervention of France," were motionless. England, however, pioposed to force the Turkish fleet from the hands of Mehemet A Ii ; and here began the unfortunate difference between France and England. At the instance of France, however, England gave up her violent intentions against the Viceroy ; but when it became necessary more strictly to define the boundaries between the Sultan's and theViceroy's territories, the differ- ence between England ar 1 France hee:arne more appareut-

" Lord Palmerston dec . that according to him the Viceroy ought to receive the hereditary pus on of Egypt, but that, as a compensation for this,

he ought to abandon Min.. . del). the Holy Cities, the island of Candle, the district of Adana, and the, hole of Syria. He modified, however, his first views in a slight degree, and consented to add to the hereditary possession of Egypt the possession (also hereditary) of the Pashalic of Acre, excepting the fortress of Acre.

"France did not accede to these propositions : she considered that the Vice- roy, after having vanquished the Sultan at Nezib, without having been the ag- gressor, and having moreover conseLted to stop his course, merited to be better dealt with. She thought that it w,oil be hardly just on the part of the Powers who had induced him, in 1S:33, to accept the conditions of Kiutaya, to impose far more rigorous conditions upon him, whelk be had done nothing to be deprived of time beuetit of this arrangement. She conceived that if de- prived of the Holy Cities, the island of Coedia, and the district of Adana, (an offensive position, which, when restored to the Porte, would grant it every security,) be ought to be allowed to retain the hereditary possession of Egypt end Syria. The victory of Nezib, gained without any anyession on his part, might alone have earned for him the hereditary right to his possessions from the Nile to the Taurus. But in considering the victory of Nezih as non-exist- eat, and making Mehemet Ali purchase this hereditary possession at the price Ida part of his possessions at the time, it was only sheet justice not to deprive him of more than Candia, Adana, and the Holy Cities."

Besides, France demanded to know the means by whieb the Viceroy could be reduced. When he menaced Constantinople, the fleets in the sea of Marmora would have sufficed to stnp him , ; but where were the means to deprive him of Syria ? blockade, insurrections, and a Russian army ? From the position -which she had thus taken up France had never swerved. This vari,ince between France and England was the signal fur sudden harmony between the other four Powers : Austria, at first agreeing with France, went over to England ; Prussia followed Austria ; and Russia adopted England's definition of boundaries ; and in September I e39 she proposed, in the name of the Five Powers, to cover Constantinople with an arms. while English and French fleets blockaded Syria. This ;arsenide:, realized the combination which till then England had regarded es the most danger- ous to tile Ottoman empire. In Jan miry IS-40, Russia Iiimmqifim..mt her propo- sition, to the extent of allowing France and Eliglarid la send three vessels of war into a limited part of' the sea of Mormoro. No " reiter- ated offers'' were made to indeue France to adopt these I:e.s. Lord Palmerston made one Singh! propesition it was, tleit the fortress of Acre should be ceded to Mehemet A Ii, but that the P.- h 'lie of Acre etould only. be given to him for life. Even this pr,,po.);-;,in, so little different front the former one, was not represented to France in the light of an a/tit/Mom ; (mot. was it so un rstood " France had e,,Cri, right to sIm;;n tl. tso long a negotiathei weuld not he termite:.. witLesit ems: esplasiatlee ; ilea the great an ! a,!•.antago',us Albanese which Lad iouel her time the la,t ten ymire to Emiglalmml, would net he broken under witlut a la,t attempt at coming to some sr_,,,eolent. The suggestions ttil math, to her, tending to induce r to lo•n. %rm that perhaps the pes-een:em tie fer lyewoaki be granted to U. it re,could net but confiro 1r tim t!,is All at ormtt, nit llom 17th of 11,ord Palmerston ir,:ites tho -,,,1,,r of Frarmixt to Comm: to time Foreign Celfiee, and intorrog mm 10 that the had famen simmer' two days before, and that withoet acquaintieg him with tee text of time treaty. The French

Cabinet ceuld not hut be aurpriaed at tide. It was certainly nut ignorant that

the three Continental Courts bad concurred in the views of England, and that an arrangement between the Four Courts was, consequently, possible without France ; but it could not suppose that this arrangement would take place without its being previously advised of it, and that the French alliance would be thus promptly sacrificed."

M. Thiers denies the charge made by Lord Palmerston, that the French Ambassador at Constantinople had sought to negotiate a direct arrangement between the Sultan and the Porte unknown to the other Four Powers. The instructions of the French Government never di- rected him to take any step of the kind.

Having thus stated the facts and denied the charges brought against the French Government, M. Thiers sums up the results— .

" I. That at the comtnencement of the negotiation the dependence and into. grity of the Ottoman empire were understood, as France to this day under- stands—not as a territorial limit of greater or lesser advantage between the Sultan and the Viceroy, but as a guarantee of the Five Courts against offensive measures on the part of Mehemet Ali, and against the exclusive protection of one of the Five Powers.

" 2. That France, far from modifying her opinions in opposition to a con- stant union of views, intentions, and expressions of opinion on the part of the Four Courts, has always, on the contrary, regarded the Turco-Egyptian ques- tion its one and the same light, while site has seen the Four Courts, although at first at variance, afterwards agree in the intention of sacrificing the Viceroy; and England, satisfied with sacrifice, coming to terms with the three others, and forming a union which, it is true, is now most persevering iu its views, and most sudden and alarming in its resolutions. " 3. That repeated sacrifices have not been made to France in order to bring her over to the plans of the Four Courts, since nothing more has been done than to offer her, in 1839, to add to Egypt the Pashalic of Acre, without the fortress of Acre, but with the hereditary possession of the Pashalic, and to offer her, in 1840, the Pasbalic of Acre wills the citadel, but without the here- ditary possession.

" 4. That she was not forewarned, as is asserted, that the Four Courts would proceed without her if she did not adhere to their views ; that, on the con- trary, she bad reason to expect to receive fresh proposals, when, upon the news of the departure of Sarni Be?' for Constantinople and the insurrection in Syria, the treaty of the 15th of July was suddenly signed without her being previ- ously informed ; and she was only made acquainted with it after it hail been signed, and received the cominunication of it only two months afterwards.

"5. That no one has a right to count upon her passive concurrence in the execution of the treaty; and if she has insisted more especially upon the diffi- culties attendant upon the means of execution, she has never professed an in- difference either as to the end or the incans,—an indifference which would ad- mit of the conclusion that she would in no case interfere in what might take place in the East ; that, far from it, she has always declared that she would withdraw herself from the four other Powers, if certain resolutions were adopted ; that none of her agents hew ever been authorized to say any thing which might lead to the conclusion that this isolated position would be 011C of inaction, and that she has always intended, as she still intends, to preserve her full liberty in this respect."

AI. Thiers, having thus adduced the facts which he considers to establish his position, goes on to argue upon the general question. He is surprised that England, who suffered Moldavia and Wallachia and Greece to be taken from Turkey, without any remonstrances about " the integrity of the Ottoman empire," should be so anxious about the remoter provinces of Egypt and Syria. IIe is amused at the reasoning which can represent the integrity of the Ottoman empire as saved though Egypt and the Pashalic of Acre are detached front it, but destroyed if the three other Pashalics of Syria, Tripoli, Damascus, and Aleppo, are detached. He asks, if the alliance of France is not of more avail for the integrity of the Ottoman empire, and for the peace of the world, than this or that boundnry in Syria ? Referring to the present position of France, standing aloof from the i?our Powers, he says-

" Although she is armed and free to act, all her efforts will he employed to avert calamities and catastrophes from the world. She will make all the sacrifices in her power for the maintenance of peace, short of those which would touch her honour ; and if she holds this language at the present moment to the British Cabinet, it is less for the purpose of complaint than for that of proving the frankness of her policy, not to Great Britain only, but to the world, vhose opinion no state, however powerful, can at thistime despise." In a postscript, M. Thiers observes, that while he writes he learns that the conciliatory advances of the Pasha have been met by the most violent hostilities ; and that he is therefore bound to subjoin an addi- tional note.

The additional note was not published till three days afterwards: it is dated the 8th October ; and appeared first in the Morality Herald of yesterday, being forwarded by an " occasional" correspondent at Paris. This additional document is of fully equal importance to any of the preceding; and having been written since the declared „ deposition of Mehemet Ali by the Sultan, it presents tlse views and ultimatum of the French Cabinet on the present state of affairs. - The reply niade by the Porte to the concessions offered by the Viceroy of Egypt, M. Thiers observes, has given an aspect altogether new n, the " grave question " which now occupies the attention of all 1 parties-

" Mehemet Ali, in reply to the summons of the Sultan, has declared that he submitted himself to the well of his august master; that he accepted the hereditary possession of Egypt; and that he placed himself, with respect to the remaiteler of the territories act idly in his occupation, entirely at the mag- nanimity of the Sultan. "We- have made known to the British Cabinet the interpretation which must be put upon this mode of expressing himself; and although Mehemet Ali would not consent to declare immediately the full extent of the concessions to which he had heeti led to agree hy the pressing recommendations of Frimee, we have taken it upon ourselves to make them known, and we have announced that the Viceroy resigns himself to the necessity of isecupi nmg the hereditary

sovereignty,. of lig) pt, inal the pe-session during his life of Syria; at the same time consenting to abandon iinnie(!i Ltely Camelia, Attalla, and the Holy Cities. Wu tenet also add that hall limo Porte adhered to this arrangement, we would at Once ban (malmStmlltell to weir:nth-e its fultilmeet in colicert with the poametS which are occupied hi determining the future middle!' of the Ottoman empire." ' " In reply to these concessions, the Porte, either acting SpOiltiLmicously, or else

,

swayed by hasty and inconsiderate COUtitimIS, proffered on the spot at. the moment—the Porte, I repeat, before any reffirence could be made to the Allied Powers, replied to the submissive OIMSWet of then Viceroy, by declaring hie de- position. Such a step, equally outrageous and unexpected, goes heywitheven ■ the spirit of the treaty of July 15th, and exceeds also the moat extraordinary I results which Wight have been expected to arise out of that document." That treaty, M. Thiele; observes, gave the Porte the power, in the

event of " an absolute refusal by the Viceroy to comply with its con- ditions, of withdrawing its first proposals, and of acting as it might deem most advantageous to its interests, according to the counsels of the Allied Powers."

"But still there were two supposed contin,gencies Involved in this treaty,— namely, an absolute and peremptory refusal on every one of the points con- tamed in it on the part of the Viceroy, and a consequent reference to the Four Powers for advice. Nothing of the kind, however, has taken place. The Viceroy has not offered an absolute refusal; and the Sultan has not even given himself the time to concert a reply in conjunction with his Allies. He met elnhoped-for concessions by all act of deposition! a The Four Powers could not approve of such conduct ; and we know in effect that Several of them hare already expressed their disapprobation cp.' it. Lord Palmerston has caused a communication to be made to our Cabinet, that we must only look upon this proceeding in the light of a threat (comminatoire) without any necessary or effective consequences. The Count d'Appeny, in an interview which I had with him on this subject, announced to me that the same opinion was entertained by his Cabinet of the proceeding. We have willingly taken cognizance of this wise intimation, and we now seize the oppor- tunity of stating the intentions of France with respect to this matter.

" France has declared that she will use every means in her power to preserve the peace and the balance of power in Europe. Now is the time for her to explain clearly what meaning this declaration is to have In accepting, with a religious fidelity, the state of Europe, such as is settled by existing treaties, France has uuderstood, that during the general peace which has happily pre- vailed since 1815, this state should not be changed either for the profit or to tile detriment of any one of the existing powers. It has been under this impression that she has always declared in favour of preserving the Ottoman empire." In the opinion of France, it is as essential for the preservation of the integrity of the Ottoman empire that the independence of Eeypt and Syria should be maintained, as the independence of the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus. The "Prince-vassal," who has succeeded in establish- ing a firm rule in two provinces which during a long period the Sultans of Constantinople were unable to govern, has become, in the view of France, " an essential and necessary part of the Ottoman empire"—

" In this conviction, France, equally disinterested in the Oriental question with the Four Powers who have signed the protocol of September 17th, behaves herself to be under the necessity of declaring that the deposition of the Vice- roy, if put in force, will be, in her estimation, a blow given to the general e,ral- librium. ff The question with respect to the limits which ought to be established in Syria in order to divide the possessions of the Sultan from those of the Vice- roy of Egypt, might with sa.ti,ty be kit to the chances qt. the tear now actually in progress, but France cannot prevail upon herself to abandon to such a chance the existence of Mehemet All as Prince Vassal of the empire. What- ever territorial limits may ultimately separate the two powers by the fortune of war, their continued double existence is necessary to Europe, and France can- not consent to admit the suppression either of the one or of the other. His posed as she is to enter upon and take part in every acceptable arrangement which shall have for its basis the double guarantee of the existence of the Sultan and that of the Viceroy of Egypt, she confines herself at present to the declaration on her part that she cannot consent to the carrying into exe- cution of the act of deposition pronounced at Constantinople. " In other respects the spontaneous manifestations of several of the Powers who have signed the treaty of July 15th, prove to us that in this respect we un- derstaud the term 'balance of Europe' in the same sense that they do, and that in this respect their views are not at variance with ours. We shetod regret this disagreement, which as yet we do not perceive ; but we could in nowise swerve front this manner of comprehending and of assuring the main- tenauce of that equilibrium.

" France entertains the hope that Enrope will appreciate the motives by

which she has been induced to break the silence hitherto preserved her. Her love of peace may be relieul upon, as that sentiment Ins constantly ani- mated her, notwithstanding the proceedings of which she believes she has a right to complain. Her disinterestedness may also he relied upon, for it is »In possible even to suspect her of aspiring to any acquisitions of territory in the East. What she does aspire to is the maintenance of' the equilibrium of Eu- rope. This is also the care of' the Great Powers in common with her, and it ought to form at once time object of their glory and of their ambition.