London, Tuesday, February 22, 1853 

The electric telegraph brings the following news from Stuhlweis- 
senburg *: 

“On the 18th inst., at 1 o’clock, the Emperor of Austria, Francis Joseph, was 
walking on the ramparts of Vienna, when a Hungarian journeyman tailor named 
Janos Libényi, formerly a hussar from Vienna, rushed upon him in a moment and 
struck him with a poniard. The blow was warded off by an aid-de-camp, the Count 
O’Donnell. Francis Joseph was wounded below the occiput. The Hungarian, 21 years 
of age, was struck down by a blow of the aid-de-camp’s sword and was arrested 
immediately.” 

According to other accounts, the weapon employed was a musket. 

A very extensive conspiracy for the overthrow of the Austrian rule 
has just been discovered in Hungary. 

The Wiener Zeitung” publishes several sentences passed by courts 
martial on thirty-nine individuals, accused principally of conspiracy 
with Kossuth and Ruszak, from Hamburg. 

Immediately after the revolutionary outbreak in Milan had been 
crushed, Radetzky gave orders to intercept all communication with 
Piedmont and Switzerland. You will ere this have received the scanty 
information that has been allowed to find its way from Italy to 
England. I call your attention to one characteristic feature in the 
Milan affair. 

Lieutenant-Marshal Count Strassoldo, in his first decree of the 7th 
inst., although imposing the severest state of siege upon Milan, 
plainly admits that the bulk of the population took no part whatever 
in the late insurrection. Radetzky, in his subsequent proclamation of 

> Issue No. 35 of February 10, 1853.— Ed. 

the 9th inst., dated from Verona, subverts the statement of his 
inferior, and takes advantage of the rebellion to obtain money under 
false pretenses. He subjects all persons not notoriously belonging to 
the Austrian party to fines of unlimited extent, for the benefit of the 
garrison. In his proclamation of the 11th inst. he declares “that the 
generality of the inhabitants, with a few praiseworthy exceptions,are 
unwilling to submit to the Imperial rule,” and he instructs all judicial 
authorities, z.e. the courts martial, to sequestrate the property of all 
the accomplices, explaining this term in the following manner: 

“Che tale complicita consista semplicimente nella omissione della denuncia a cui ognuno é 
tenuto.” * 

He might as well have confiscated all Milan at once under the 
pretense that, the insurrection having broken out on the 6th, its 
inhabitants failed to denounce it on the 5th. Whoever will not 
become a spy and informer for the Hapsburg shall be liable to 
become the lawful prey of the Croat.*’* In a word, Radetzky 
proclaims a new system of wholesale plunder. 

The Milan insurrection is significant as a symptom of the 
approaching revolutionary crisis on the whole European continent. 
As the heroic act of some few proletarians—the sons of Mammon 
were dancing, and singing, and feasting amid the blood and tears of 
their debased and crucified nation—proletarians who, armed only 
with knives, marched to attack the citadel of a garrison and 
surrounding army of forty thousand of the finest troops in Europe, 
it is admirable. But as the finale of Mazzini’s eternal conspiracy, of 
his bombastic proclamations and his arrogant capucinades against 
the French people, it is a very poor result. Let us hope that 
henceforth there will be an end of révolutions improvisées, as the 
French call them. Has one ever heard of great improvisators being 
also great poets? They are the same in politics as in poetry. 
Revolutions are never made to order. After the terrible experience 
of ’48 and ’49, it needs something more than paper summonses from 
distant leaders to evoke national revolutions. Kossuth has seized the 
opportunity for publicly disavowing the insurrection in general, and 
the proclamation published in his name in particular.” It looks, 
however, rather suspicious that he claims for himself a post-factum 
superiority to his friend Mazzini as a politician. The Leader remarks 
on this subject: 

“We deem it necessary to caution our readers that the matter in question lies 
exclusively between Mr. Kossuth and Mr. Mazzini, the latter of whom is absent from 
England.* : 

Della Rocco, a friend of Mazzini, says in a letter addressed to The 
Daily News, with regard to Mr. Kossuth’s and Mr. Agostini’s dis- 
avowals: 

“There are persons who will suspect that they were waiting the definitive news of 
the success or the failure of the insurrection, as ready to share the honor of the former 
as to repel the responsibility of the latter.” 

B. Szemere, Ex-Minister of Hungary, protests in a letter addressed 
to the editor of The Morning Chronicle, “against the illegitimate 
usurpation of the name of Hungary by Kossuth.” He says: 

“Let those who are desirous of forming a judgment of him as a statesman, read 
attentively the history of the last Hungarian Revolution, or of learning his skill as a 
conspirator, cast a retrospective glance on the unhappy Hamburg expedition of last 
year.” 

That the revolution is victorious even in its failures, one may see 
from the terrors the Milan échauffourée‘ has thrown in the very heart 
of continental potentates. Look only at the following letter published 
in the official Frankfurter Oberpostamts-Zeitung* : 

“ Berlin, Feb. 13.—The events at Milan have produced a deep impression here. 
The news reached the King“ by telegraph on the 9th, just as the court was in the 
middle of a ball. The King immediately declared that the movement was connected 
with a deep conspiracy, which had its ramifications everywhere, and that it showed the 
necessity for the close union of Prussia and Austria in presence of these revolutionary 
movements.... A high functionary exclaimed: ‘We may thus have to defend the 
Prussian crown on the banks of the Po.” 

So great was the alarm created in the first moment, that about 
twenty inhabitants of Berlin were arrested without any other cause 
than the “deep impression.” The Neue Preussische Zeitung, the ultra 
Royalist paper, was confiscated for publishing the document 
purporting to be from Kossuth. On the 13th the Minister of 
Westphalia presented to the first chamber a hasty bill for 
empowering the Government to seize all papers or pamphlets 
published outside the frontiers of Prussia. Arrests and domiciliar 

* “Kossuth and the Milan Revolt”, The Leader, February 19, 1853.— Ed. 

visits are the order of the day at Vienna. Negotiations immediately 
took place between Russia, Prussia and Austria, for a joint 
remonstrance to be addressed to the British Government on the 
subject of political refugees. So weak, so powerless are the so-called 
“powers.” They feel the thrones of Europe vibrate to their 
foundations at the first forebodings of the revolutionary earthquake. 
In the midst of their armies, their gallows and their dungeons, they 
are trembling at what they call “the subversive attempts of a few paid 
miscreants.” 

“Quiet is restored.” It is. The ominous and dreadful quiet that 
intervenes between the first burst of the tempest and its returning 
roar. 

From the agitated scenes of the Continent I pass to quiet England. 
It would seem as if the spirit of little Finality-John*'* had obtained 
the whole of the official sphere for its dominion; as though the 
nation throughout had become as paralytic as the men who now 
govern it. Even The Times exclaims with despair: 

“It may be the calm before a storm; it may be the smoke before the fire.... For the 
present it is dullness.” * 

Business has been resumed in Parliament, but till now the 
three times repeated bowing of Lord Aberdeen has been the 
most dramatic, and the only conspicuous act of the Coalition 
Ministry.” The impression Lord John’s programme has made on 
his enemies has been best described by the professions of his 
friends: 

“Lord John Russell,” says The Times, “has made a speech with rather less spirit 
than an ordinary auctioneer would put into his preliminary remarks before a sale of 
old furniture, damaged goods, or shop fittings.... Lord John Russell creates mighty 
little enthusiasm.” 

You know that the new Reform Bill has been postponed under the 
presence of more urgent practical reforms calling upon the more 
immediate attention of legislators. Now an instance has already been 
given of what nature these reforms must turn out to be, while the 
instrument of reforming, viz., Parliament, remains itself unre- 
formed. 

On Feb. 14, Lord Cranworth laid his programme of legal reform 
before the House of Lords. By far the greater part of his prolix, 

No. 21350, February 12, 1853.— Ed. 

tedious, and indecisive speech consisted in the enumeration of the 
many things he was expected, but not at all prepared to do. He 
excused himself with being only seven weeks on the woolsack, but, as 
The Times observes, “Lord Cranworth has been 63 years in this 
world, and 37 at the Bar.” * In the true spirit of Whiggery, he infers 
from the comparatively great results obtained by the small legal 
reforms hitherto made, that it would be an infraction of the laws of 
modesty to go on reforming in the same strain. In the true spirit of 
Aristocracy, he abstains from dealing with Ecclesiastical Law, as “It 
would interfere too much with vested interests.” Interests vested in 
what? In public nuisances. The only measures of any importance 
prepared by Lord Cranworth are the following two: Firstly, a “Bill to 
facilitate the transfer of land,” the principal features of which are, 
that it renders the transfer of land only more difficult, by increasing 
the expenses thereon, and augmenting the technical obstructions, 
without shortening the length, or diminishing the complexity of 
conveyances. Second, a proposition to form a commission for 
digesting the statute law,*'’ the whole merit of which will be 
restricted to the compilation of an index for the 40 quarto volumes 
of statutes at large. Lord Cranworth certainly may defend his 
measures against the most inveterate opponents to law-reform with 
the same excuse which was offered by the poor girl to her Confessor, 
namely: that, though it was true that she had had a child, it was but a 
very little one. 

Up to this day the only interesting debate in the House of 
Commons was that in which Mr. Disraeli, on the 18th inst., in- 
terpellated the Ministers on the relations of the country with 
France. Disraeli began with Poitiers and Azincourt, and ended 
with the hustings at Carlisle, and the Cloth-Hall at Halifax, his object 
being to denounce Sir James Graham and Sir Charles Wood” for 
irreverent remarks made on the character of Napoleon III. Disraeli 
could not have rendered the utter decay of the old Tory party more 
evident, than by his throwing himself up as the apologist of the 
Bonapartes, the hereditary enemies of the very political class whose 
chief he himself is. He could not have opened his opposition career 
in a more inappropriate manner, than by this justification of the 
actual regime in France. The weakness of this part of his speech may 
be seen from a short analysis of it. 

Attempting to explain the causes of the uneasiness felt by the 

public on the state of England’s present relations with France, he was. 
compelled to admit that the principal motive was just derived from 
the large armaments, which were commenced under his own 
administration. Nevertheless he endeavored to prove, that the 
increasing and completing of the defenses of Great Britain had their 
only reason in the great changes occasioned by the modern 
application of science to the art of war. Competent authorities, he 
says, had ere this recognized the necessity of such measures. In 1840, 
under the Ministry of M. Thiers, there had been made some efforts 
by the Government of Sir Robert Peel, at least to commence a new 
system with regard to the public defenses. But in vain. Again, at the 
outbreak of the Continental revolutions in 1848, an opportunity had 
been offered to the Government of the day to lead popular opinion 
in the direction which it desired, as far as the defense of the country 
was concerned. But again without result. The question of national 
defenses had not become ripe before he and his colleagues were 
placed at the head of the Government. The measures adopted by 
them were as follows: 

I. A Militia was established. 

II. The Artillery was placed in an efficient state. 

III. Measures were introduced which will completely fortify the Arsenals of the 
country, and some important strong posts upon the coast. 

IV. A proposition was made by which will be added to the Navy 5,000 sailors and 
1,500 marines. 

V. Arrangements were made for the establishment of the ancient force in the 
form of a Channel Fleet of 15 or 20 sail of the line with an adequate number of 
frigates and smaller ships. 

Now, from all these statements, it is evident that Disraeli 
established exactly the contrary of what he wanted to prove. The 
Government was unable to effect an increase of armaments, when 
the Syrian and Tahitian questions menaced the entente cordiale with 
Louis Philippe*'’; it was equally unable to do so when Revolution 
spread all over the Continent and seemed to threaten British 
interests at their very root. Why, then, has it become possible to do so 
now, and why was it done by Mr. Disraeli’s Government? Exactly 
because Napoleon III has raised more fears for the security of 
England than have existed at any time since 1815. And further, as 
Mr. Cobden justly observed: 

“The proposed increase in the naval force was not an increase of steam machinery, 

but one of men, and the transition from the use of sailing vessels to that of steamers 
did not imply the necessity of a larger number of sailors, but quite the contrary.” * 

Times, No. 21356, February 19, 1853.— Ed. 

Disraeli said: ? 

“Another cause for the belief in an impending rupture with France is the 
existence in France of a military government. But when armies are anxious for 
conquests it is because their position at home is uneasy; and France is now governed by 
the army, not in consequence of the military ambition of the troops, but in 
consequence of the disquietude of the citizens.” 

Mr. Disraeli seems entirely to overlook that the question is just, 
how long the army will feel easy at home, and how long the entire 
Nation will bow, out of deference to the egotistical disquietude of a 
small class of citizens, to the actual terrors of a military despotism, 
which after all is but the instrument of exclusive class interests. 

The third cause alleged by Mr. Disraeli was: 

“The considerable prejudice in this country against the present ruler of France... 
It is understood that in acceding to power he has terminated what we esteem a 
Parliamentary Constitution, and that he has abrogated the liberty of the press.” 

There is, however, but little which Mr. Disraeli knew of to oppose 
to that prejudice. He said “it was extremely difficult to form an 
opinion on French politics.” 

It is simply common sense which tells the English people, although. 
less deeply initiated into the mysteries of French politics than Mr. 
Disraeli, that the reckless adventurer, being neither controlled by a 
Parliament nor a press, is the very man to make a piratical descent 
upon England, after his own exchequer has become exhausted by 
extravagance and dissipation. 

Mr. Disraeli then records some instances, in which the cordial 
understanding between Bonaparte and the late Administration had 
greatly contributed toward the maintenance of peace, as in the case 
of an impending conflict between France and Switzerland, in the 
opening of the South America rivers, in the case of Prussia and 
Neuchatel, in pressing upon the United States the Tripartite 
renunciation of Cuba, in the common action in the Levant with 
regard to the Tanzimat in Egypt, in the revision of the Greek 
Succession Treaty, in the cordial co-operation with regard to the 
Regency of Tunis, &c.*”° Now this reminds me of a certain member 
of the French party of order, who made a speech at the end of 
November, 1851, on the cordial understanding between Bonaparte 
and the majority of the Assembly which had enabled the latter 
so easily to dispose of the Suffrage, the Association, and the 

Press questions. Two days later the coup d’état had been carried 
out. 

Weak and inconsistent as was this part of Disraeli’s speech, 
his attacks on the Coalition Ministry formed a brilliant conclu- 
sion: 

“There is one other reason,” he concluded, “why I am bound to pursue this 
inquiry at the present moment, and I find that reason in the present state of parties in 
this House. It is a peculiar state of things. We have at this moment a Conservative 
Ministry, and we have a Conservative Opposition. [Cheers.] Where the great Liberal 
party is, I pretend not to know. [Cheers.] Where are the Whigs, with their great 
traditions? ...There is no one to answer. [Renewed cheering.] Where, I ask, are the 
youthful energies of Radicalism? Its buoyant expectations—its expanded hopes? 
Awakened, | fear, from the dreams of that ardent inexperience which attend 
sometimes the career of youth, it finds itself at the same moment used and discarded. 
[Cheers.] Used without compunction, and not discarded with too much decency. 
[Cheers.] Where are the Radicals? Is there a man in the House who declares himself to 
be a Radical? [Hear, hear!] No, not one. He would be afraid of being caught and 
turned into a Conservative Minister. [Roars of laughter.] Well, how has this curious 
state of things been brought about? Where is the machinery by which it has been 
effected, this portentous political calamity? I believe I must go to that inexhaustible 
magazine of political devices, the First Lord of the Admiralty (Graham), to explain the 
present state of affairs. The House may recollect that some two years ago the First 
Lord of the Admiralty afforded us, as is his wont, one of those political creeds in which 
his speeches abound. He said: ‘I take my stand on progress.’ Well, Sir, I thought at the 
time that progress was an odd thing to take one’s stand upon. [Much laughter and 
cheering.] I thought at the time that this was a piece of oratorical slip-slop. But I 
apologize for the momentary suspicion. I find that it was a system perfectly matured, 
and now brought into action. For we have now a Ministry of progress, and every one 
stands still. [Cheers.] We never hear the word ‘reform’ now; it is no longer a Ministry 
of reform; it is a Ministry of progress, every member of which resolves to do nothing. 
All difficult questions are suspended. All questions which cannot be agreed upon are 
open questions.” 

The opponents of Disraeli had but little to say in reply to him, with 
the exception of that very “inexhaustible magazine of political 
devices,” Sir James Graham, who, at least, conserved his dignity in 
not wholly retracting the offensive words against Louis Napoleon, of 
which he had been accused. 

Lord John Russell charged Mr. Disraeli with making a party 
question of the country’s foreign policy, and assured the Opposi- 
tion: 

“That after the contentions and struggles of last year the country would gladly see 
a short time at least of peaceable progress, without any of these great convulsive 
struggles of parties.” 

The result of the debate is, that the whole of the navy estimates will 
be voted by the House, but to the comfort of Louis Napoleon, not 
from a warlike but only a scientific view of the matter. Suaviter in 

modo, fortiter in re* On Thursday morning last, the Queen’s 
Advocate, appearing before Sir J. Dodson, in the Prerogative Court, 
requested, on behalf of the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, that the 
original will and codicil of Napoleon Bonaparte should be delivered 
up by the Register to the French Government; which desire was 
complied with. Should Louis Bonaparte proceed to open and 
endeavor to execute this testament, it might prove the modern box 
of Pandora. 

Written on February 22, 1853 Reproduced from the newspaper