It is impossible to describe the excitement and suspense of the 
English during the week. On Saturday last the dispatch about the 
victury of the Alma was proclaimed by the Lord Mayor* before 
the Exchange, with the sound of the trumpet; but the unauthenti- 
cated news of the fall of Sevastopol spread all over the country. 
All the world was taken in. Napoleon announced it to his army at 
Boulogne, the English and French papers contained leaders on the 
happy event, the Emperor of Austria congratulated the Emperor 
and the Queen upon their success, but cautiously did not mention 
Sevastopol; bonfires were lighted, and the cannon boomed. We 
soon obtained the dispatch which originated all this joy and 
exultation; and indeed it proved to proceed from a very suspicious 
source. A Tartar—that is to say, a Turkish postman—has arrived 
at Bucharest with dispatches from Constantinople for Omer Pasha, 
which, as the General was absent, had to be sent to him 
unopened—therefore we don’t know their contents. But the 
postman related that at his departure from Constantinople the 
town was illuminated, and that orders were given to continue the 
illumination for ten days. He concluded, therefore, that Sevastopol 
was taken, and gave just such details as a Turkish or London 
postboy could give in a pothouse. He mentioned 18,000 Russians 
killed, but only 200 guns taken, though the forts contain above 
500 guns; 22,000 Russians were of course prisoners, since it was 
known that the garrison amounted to about 40,000. The fleet was 
first taken; then again a portion of it was destroyed, and Prince 

Menchikoff was on the point of blowing himself up with the 
remainder, &c., &c. 

But it remained rather curious that such an important event had 
not been communicated by Lord Redcliffe to the Consul at 
Bucharest,” and that no dispatch had reached the French 
Government. Still, the news was too good not to be believed, and 
accordingly it was believed. Next day, it is true, there arrived a 
report from St. Petersburg mentioning a dispatch of Prince 
Menchikoff of the 26th, which showed that after the battle of the 
Alma he was retreating toward Simferopol. Still the papers 
believed that it was a misprint, and that the real date of the 
dispatch was the 20th, rather than to give up the agreeable 
delusion of the fall of Sevastopol at the first onset. To-day, 
however, has brought the English public to reason; the miraculous 
capture of a great fortress without a siege proves to have been a 
cruel hoax, which. will make the papers more cautious in future. 

In Spain disturbances have taken place not only in Malaga, 
where the Republican party, as I remarked in my last letter, is 
very strong,” but even in Logrono, where Espartero resided for 
many years; and in Jaen, the telegraph adds that a Republican 
conspiracy has been discovered, and that the Infant Don Enrique, 
the brother of the idiotic husband” of the Queen,‘ has been exiled 
to the Balearic Islands. Still the excitement about Sevastopol is so 
great that nobody pays attention to Spain. 

In Denmark the Diet was opened on the 2d. The royal speech 
from the throne‘ breathes defiance to the Assembly. It was 
received by hisses and by hearty cheers for the Constitution. The 
Frankfort Journal reiterates the statement that the allied powers 
have resolved to reconsider the famous treaty of the 8th of May, 
1852,°° by which the succession to the Danish throne was 
eventually made over to the Emperor of Russia. Urquhart has not 
ceased to bring this discreditable piece of European diplomacy 
before the public over and over again, and his endeavors seem 
now at last to have succeeded.’ The object of this movement, if 
there be anything in the rumor, is simply by reopening the 
question to get Prussia, who dissented from that protocol, to ally 

herself with the western powers. It is worthy of note that 
Palmerston called the protocol, like the treaty of 1840, measures 
against Russia, while its suspension is now to be considered as an 
act of hostility toward Russia. 

Austria is reported to have sent a note to St. Petersburg, 
offering once more the four conditions as the basis of peace,* and 
declaring that the refusal of the Czar to accept them will be taken 
for a casus belli by Francis Joseph. This is one of the results of the 
victories in the Crimea. 

The following observations on a recent article in The Economist 
are taken from the trade circular of Messrs. Smith & Charles: 

“Of all the announcements or intimations that have appeared since the war 
began, that put forth on Saturday last by The Economist is by far the most 
important in a Russo-commercial point of view. It must be borne in mind that this 
weekly journal is the property of one of the Secretaries to the Treasury (Mr. Wilson) and 
hence the remarks to which we are about to draw attention may be regarded as semi-official. 
Having explained the course of exchange in Petersburg, and shown that, as a 
consequence of our trade with Prussia, British gold must necessarily be furnished 
by this country to Russia for its belligerent purposes; having stated that this was all 
foreseen by our Government, but that they considered such a state of things the 
lesser of two evils, The Economist proceeds to say, that after the fall of Sevastopol 
‘we shall be in undisturbed possession of the Black Sea and its shores, and masters 
of the Danube. But in the meantime Russia may take a posture which we can never 
by our arms reach, in the hope of wearying the patience of England, as in 
such a posture Russia can only be reached by her trade, and it may become a 
question whether our national interests will not dictate before long a different 
policy from that we have hitherto followed. We shall find that we blockade the 
ports in vain, so long as our produce finds a ready market through neighboring 
countries; so long as we permit Prussia to profit so much by being the medium 
through which our blockade of Russian shores can be so easily evaded, &c.... If, 
therefore, considerations of general policy shall render it needful again to consider 
the question of the extent to which the blockade shall be enforced and the trade 
restricted by land as well as by sea, &c. The Economist concludes with a most solemn 
warning, saying: ‘It will be well for those who are disposed to engage in such 
hazardous undertakings (as supplying the Russians with capital to purchase goods 
in the winter, to be forwarded to this country next year) to consider that it may be 
found needful to pursue a very different policy in the second year of a Russian 
campaign, from that which was wisest and best in the first.’ We need hardly point 
out that the upshot of all this (and we strongly recommend our friends carefully to 
consider the entire article) is, that the Allied Powers have determined —as the only 
way of bringing the war to a close—to prohibit the overland traffic next year; and 
to prevent capitalists from embarking in a trade which will then be prohibited, the 
Government has very considerately allowed one of the Secretaries of the Treasury 
to make known their intentions in sufficient time to prevent the serious 
consequences to our merchants which would otherwise ensue. On Saturday the 
tallow market was quiet,at a shade under Friday’s prices. It is probable that but for 
the article in The Economist,to which we have drawn attention, our market would 

have declined to-day in consequence of the news from Sevastopol, there being an 
opinion that the fall of this important fortress is likely to bring the Emperor to 
terms. Our opinion is the very reverse, and that the catastrophe in question is 
calculated only to excite the exasperation of the Czar, and to lead him to seek 
revenge in some other direction. It is quite certain that until he is compelled to fly 
from his own great cities he may consider himself not utterly beaten, and he has 
too much at stake to give in until he is driven to the utmost extremity. We 
therefore look on this war as one which may be protracted through many years, 
unless the course intimated by The Economist as likely to be adopted by the allies is 
actually put in force.” * 

The Moniteur of the 5th October announces that Barbes, for the 
last three years.a prisoner at Belle-ile, has been set at liberty 
without condition by order of Bonaparte on account of a letter in 
which he expresses anxious feelings of hope for the success of 
Decembrist civilization against Muscovite civilization, the former 
of which, by the way, has recently manifested itself at Athens by 
reproducing the days of June, 1849°°—the French Soldateska 
there seizing an “obnoxious” newspaper editor, burning his books 
and letters, and throwing him into prison. From this moment 
Barbes has ceased to be one of the revolutionary chiefs of France. 
By declaring his sympathies for the French arms in whatever 
cause, and under whatever command they may be employed, he 
has irretrievably associated himself with the Muscovites themselves, 
sharing their indifference as to the object of ‘their campaigns. 
Barbes and Blanqui have long shared the real supremacy of 
revolutionary France. Barbés never ceased to calumniate and 
throw suspicion upon Blanqui as in connivance with the Govern- 
ment. The fact of his letter and of Bonaparte’s order decides the 
question as to who is the man of the Revolution and who not. 

Tribune, No. 4215, October 21, 1854