In one of my former letters I gave you an analysis of the 
Austro-Turkish Treaty of the 14th of June,* and stated as the 
purposes aimed at by that curious diplomatic transaction: Ist. To 
give the allied armies a pretext for not crossing the Danube, and 
for not confronting the Russians; 2d. To prevent the Turks from 
reoccupying the whole of Wallachia, and forcing them out of that 
part which they had already conquered: 3d. To restore in the 
Principalities the old Reactionary Government, forced upon the 
Roumans by Russia in 1848. We are now actually informed from 
Constantinople, that Austria has protested against Omer Pasha’s 
presumption in crossing the Danube; that she claims an exclusive 
occupation of the Principalities for herself, and the right of 
shutting them not only against the Anglo-French troops, but 
equally against the Turks. Upon this remonstrance, the Porte is 
said to have forwarded orders to Omer Pasha not to cross the 
Danube for the present, while refusing to admit, in principle, the 
exclusive occupation of the Principalities by Austria. Wretched 
Pasha” who has learned something from his master and contriver, 
Lord Palmerston, has of course little objection to admitting in fact 
what he refuses in principle. You may perhaps think that Austria 
has already violated as well as practically canceled the treaty of the 
14th June, by not entering Wallachia at the moment when the 
Russian army was disorderly retreating in three different direc- 
tions, and was exposed in the flank and the rear to an Austrian 

attack, if it had failed to retire at once behind the Sereth. Only 
remember that by the very words of this famous treaty Austria is 
bound neither to enter the Principalities at once, nor to leave them 
at any exact epoch, nor even to force the Russians to evacuate 
them within any definite term. It is now stated that the Austrians 
are really entering Little Wallachia, and that the Russians are 
recalling their troops from the Carpathian passes and concentrat- 
ing them at Fokshani. This, however, means nothing but that the 
Austrians, instead of expelling the Russians from Great Wallachia, 
have resolved to eject the Turks from Little Wallachia, thus 
preventing their operations on the banks of the Aluta. It is evident 
that no better contrivance could have been imagined to work up a 
military insurrection in Turkey than their exclusion from the 
territory conquered by the Turkish army, and by an occupation of 
Bulgaria through Anglo-French troops, who are fully avoiding the 
Russians, keep the Turks under a sort of state of siege—as you 
may see from the common proclamation of the Anglo-French 
commanders to the inhabitants of Bulgaria—a_ proclamation 
almost literally copied from a Budberg, a Gorchakoff and _ tutti 
quanti. I have told you long before this that the western powers 
would render one service to progress—the service of revolutioniz- 
ing Turkey, that keystone of the antiquated European system." 
Besides the protest against the Turkish presumption of occupy- 
ing Turkish territories, Austria demands the reinstallation of the 
two hospodars now residing at Vienna, whose return to Wallachia 
and Moldavia, along with the first Austrian troops, Herr von 
Bruck has announced to the Porte. Reshid Pasha replies that the 
Porte will take the propriety of their restoration into considera- 
tion—Herr von Bruck, on his part, insisting, however, on the 
fulfillment of Article III of the Convention, which stipulates the 
reestablishment of the late Government. It will be remembered 
that I called attention to the ambiguous construction lable to be 
put on this article.” Reshid Pasha retorts that this reestablishment 
could not take place before the Porte had made sure that the 
hospodars had not failed in their duty as loyal subjects. The Porte 
had no serious complaints against Prince Ghica of Moldavia, but 
the conduct of Stirbey, the hospodar of Wallachia, had been very 
compromising, having proved himself a partisan of Russia in the 
most scandalous manner, so that his expulsion had been imposed 
upon the Porte. Herr von Bruck then appealed to the Sultan, who 

assembled an extraordinary Council, in which the compromise was 
made that both hospodars should be recalled to their posts 
provisionally, while the Porte would appoint a High Commissioner 
to inquire into their conduct, and then come to a definitive 
resolution. Now it will be at once understood that Prince Ghica, 
against whom Reshid pretends to have no serious objections, is 
only nominally recalled, Moldavia remaining in the hands of the 
Russians. The recall of Prince Stirbey, expelled by the Porte itself, 
and stigmatized as a Russian agent, is, on the contrary, a real 
restoration, as a portion of Wallachia is already evacuated by the 
Russians, and the other likely to become so at no distant time. 

But the action of Austrian diplomacy does not stop there. We 
read in yesterday’s Morning Post, dated Belgrade, July 19?: 

“An order arrived yesterday, from Constantinople, immediately to suspend all 
armaments and military exercises. It is confidently stated that there is another 

order for disarmament. The intelligence was forwarded at once to Prince 
Alexander.” 

This, then, is the answer of the Porte to the Servian protest 
against an Austrian occupation. Thus that miserable Turkish 
Government is simultaneously prevented from thwarting its 
avowed enemy, and driven into hostile and usurpatory acts against 
its own loyal dependencies. By the treaty of the 14th June it broke 
its Conventions with the Principalities, and by the order for 
disarmament it breaks the fundamental laws of Servia.”* By the 
same stroke of policy, the Turkish army is worked into a state of 
insurrection, and Servia and the Principalities are thrown into the 
arms of Russia. The Austrian summons for the evacuation of the 
Principalities turns out to be a prohibition to the Turks to enter 
them, and the boasted armaments of Austria to be the disarma- 
ment of Servia. 

With all that stupid Austria, a mere tool in the hands of the 
Czar and his English confederates, is only preparing the elements 
of a general revolution, the first victim of which she herself will 
be, and of which nobody can complain except utopian reac- 
tionaries like David Urquhart. 

You are already informed of the first movements in Italy. The 
public papers speak of riots at Genoa, Modena, Parma, &c.‘; but, 

July 27, 1854.— Ed. 

in my opinion, the scenes which have occurred at Ferrara remind 
us more of the general insurrection of 1848 than all the rest. 

That I have justly characterized, from the first, the patriotic 
voluntary loan of the arrogant and bankrupt Austrian Govern- 
ment,” you will see from the notification Chevalier le Burger has 
lately addressed to the loyal subjects of Lombardy. He informs 
them that the quota the Lombardian territory has to pay to the 
voluntary loan will amount to 40,000,000 florins, equivalent to 
104,400,000 francs, which, divided among the population, makes 
40 francs per head. 

“This voluntary loan,” says the Unione, “resolves itself into a gigantic 
confiscation—every province, every commune and every individual being assigned 
a quota which it must pay voluntarily.” 

In order to leave no doubt as to the true meaning of this 
voluntary loan, the notification of Chevalier Burger ends in the 
following terms: 

“It must be more than evident, that in case the voluntary loan should not 
succeed, an extraordinary and forced contribution must be levied upon the various 

elements of the produce of land, capital, commerce and industry in the most 
convenient proportions.” 

At Monday’s sitting of the Commons,” for the first time in the 
annals of Parliament, the Lord President of the Ministry‘ and 
Leader of the House rose on the pretext of giving a deliberate 
exposition of the intentions of the Cabinet, which he completely 
recanted six hours later in the same place. At 7 P.M. Sevastopol 
was bombarded, dismantled, destroyed and dismembered from 
Russia. At 1.15 A.M. the Russian fleet at Sevastopol was to be 
reduced by one or two sail of the line, and “Russia by no means to 
be disturbed in her present rank and position.” During six hours 
litle Johnny brawled, swaggered, bullied, hectored, rodomon- 
tized,* cheered, congratulated, amplified to his Commoners?”’; 
during six hours he caused Parliament to revel in “a fool’s 
paradise,” when, by no more than one sting of Mr. Disraeli’s 
tongue, this bubble speech suddenly shrunk together, and the 
false lion was forced to hang his usual calf-skin round _ his 
shoulders. This was a “day of humiliation” for the Ministry, but 
they carried their three millions of pounds. 

At Tuesday’s sitting the debate on Lord Stuart’s motion for the 
non-adjournment of Parliament took place.* They had voted away 
the money of the country; they could not but vote their 
confidence in the Ministry. This being generally understood by the 
honorable members, the House was but thinly attended, the 
debate dull, the Ministry more provoking than ever, and the 
motion of Dudley negatived without a division. The Ministry 
contrived to turn their very disgrace into a victory over the 
Commoners. This was the “day of humiliation” for Parliament. 
Nevertheless, the sitting became important from the defense of 
the warfare furnished by Mr. Herbert, the British Secretary at 
War, and Woronzoff’s brother-in-law; from Berkeley, the Lord of 
the Admiralty’s indiscretions; and from little Johnny’s magisterial 
declarations on the internal state of the English Ministry. 

In answer to the complaints about the deficient organization of 
the commissariat, Mr. Herbert, a thin-headed ex-young Tory, 
entered into an elaborate eulogy of Commissary-General Filder, 
who was certainly the fittest man for the place, because, some fifty 
years ago, he had enjoyed the confidence of the Iron Duke,” and 
held high offices under him. To the disagreeable letters of the 
newspaper correspondents, he opposed the high-colored reports 
of “the very best paymasters in the service”, and the obligatory 
compliments of some French officers. He uttered not a word 
about the army being destitute of any means of transport, being 
supplied neither with mules nor horses to carry the baggage and 
the water necessary for an army marching from Varna and Devna 
toward the Danube, and the other necessaries required on a 
march. He uttered not a word about the deficient means of the 
army to supply itself with food. He did not refute the fact that no 
commissariat was appointed until several divisions of troops had 
been sent out, and the fleets were at Constantinople. He dared not 
contradict the assertion that Lord Raglan himself had stated that 
his troops had been stationed at one place nearly two months, but 
could not advance from the deficiency of the commissariat, 
although they were almost within cannonshots hearing of the 
half-starved enemy. 

In a similar way the ingenious brother-in-law of Prince 
Woronzoff got rid of the complaints on the ordnance. He spent 
much breath upon an answer to a reproach made by nobody but 

No, 21803, July 26, 1854.— Ed. 

himself, viz: that there were only six-pounders out with the army 
in Turkey, while he passed under obstinate silence the facts that 
there was no battering train with the army, that the infantry was 
almost unsupported by cavalry, the most essential arm for 
operations in the plains of Wallachia, and that the 40,000 men at 
Varna had not 40 pieces of artillery to oppose to the Russians 
where every corps of 40,000 men deploys 120 pieces. 

To the attacks on the negligence of the Government in 
supplying the army with the necessary implements, the brother-in- 
law of Woronzoff answered by an indignant defense of the 
military commanders who were -not at all to blame. 

As to the fatal accidents and the British monopoly of fatal 
accidents, none of which happened to the French expedition, the 
Hon. Mr. Herbert replied, first, that it was true that a ship which 
carried out a portion of the 6th Dragoons was lost by fire, but that 
the commander, 

“a noble old man, faced the most terrible death which man can be subject to, 

and refused, at the solicitation of his own men, to leave the ship until, alas! it was 
too late, and he perished at. his post.” 

The imbecile Commoners cheered this nonsensical answer. As to 
the loss of the Tiger,**° he declared it to belong to the chapter of 
accidents. As to the “grievous casualty in the Baltic—why, it 
proved the foolhardiness of our seamen.” **! 

The small-headed man then proceeded to answer the question 
whether “no practical results had been brought about by our fleets 
and armies?” and he glories in the “complete, effective, and 
irresistible blockade of the Russian ports.” This blockade was so 
effective that, for instance, eight Russian war-steamers have 
reached Odessa from Sevastopol, notwithstanding bombardments, 
fights and obstruction. It was so effective that the Baltic trade is 
carried on through Russia to such an extent that Russian produce 
is selling at London at a price very little higher than that at which 
it sold before the war; that at Odessa commerce is carried on 
exactly as last year, and that even the nominal blockades of the 
Black and White Seas were only some days ago forced upon the 
English by Bonaparte. 

But the English Government did more, exclaims the noble 
young man called Herbert. Had they not wrested from Russia the 
ability of communicating supplies by the Black Sea, and cut them 
off from all access by sea? He forgot that for four months they left 
the Russians in the command of the Danube, that they allowed 
them to appropriate with only 15,000 men the European 

corn-houses of Moldavia and Wallachia, that they abandoned to 
them the rich flocks of the Dobrodja almost under their eyes, and 
that they prevented the Turkish fleet. from annihilating the 
Russian squadron at Sinope. 

They had an ample share in the military success of the Turks, 
because by forming their reserve they enabled them to use every 
man and every gun against the invading army. Need I repeat to 
your readers* that, as long as the Russians were unable to 
concentrate a superior force in the Principalities, the British 
Government interdicted Omer Pasha the use of his own numerical 
superiority and the fruits of his first victories? 

Had their forces done anything else? 

“How many pounds sterling had been expended by Russia in erecting a line of 
forts along the coast of Circassia? In one short campaign, all these strong places, 
which formed the chains with which Circassia was bound, had, with one exception, 
fallen into their hands or into those of their allies.” 

Woronzoff! Woronzoff! Do you not remember that, when 
advised, at the beginning of the session, to take those forts, you 
refused to do so, thus allowing the Russians to withdraw their 
garrisons to Sevastopol? You have only taken the forts which the 
Russians chose to abandon, and that single “exception,” which you 
neither destroyed nor captured, nor attacked, is the only one 
worth taking, the only one thought worth holding by the Russians, 
and the only one by which you could communicate with the 
Circassians— Anapa. 

Mr. Herbert reached the climax of his insipid diatribe when he 
pretended that in the glorious defense of Silistria, which they 
neither relieved, nor allowed Omer Pasha to relieve, England had 
a share, because of one dead young man, called Captain Butler. 
Lieutenant Nasmyth, as a living man, is of course not mentioned. 
Captain Butler, let me tell you, went to Silistria, only after the 
Government had refused to send him there, and the more ground 
for Marshal Herbert to claim credit for his conduct. As to 
Lieutenant Nasmyth, he belongs to the class who were shortly to 
be expelled from the British camp, and went to Silistria in the 
capacity of a newspaper correspondent. 

Lord Dudley Stuart having assailed the Government for not 
procuring steamers drawing only three feet of water and carrying 
one or two heavy guns, Admiral Berkeley—who spoke after Gen. 
Herbert—begged the noble Lord “to teach the Surveyor of the 

Navy? how to build such steamboats.” This was the answer given 
by the gallant Whig admiral to the question how the Admiralty 
could fit out a fleet for the Baltic without providing a large 
number of gun-boats. Brave Berkeley and his scientific Surveyor 
of the Navy would do well to apply for instruction at the Swedish 
and Russian Admiralties than to poor and deluded Dudley Stuart. 

We have now done with the defense of British warfare as put 
forward by elegant Herbert and gallant Berkeley, and we come 
now to the indiscreet revelations of that same Berkeley. On the 
previous evening the Sevastopol bubble was blown up by little 
Johnny; on this evening the Kronstadt bubble exploded through 
the means of Berkeley. As the Austrians alone will fight out the 
case in the Principalities, there remains no field of action “for the 
most formidable armies and _ navies, with screw-propellers, 
paixhans, and other monster powers of destruction ever fitted and 
sent out by any country.” From a letter written by the gallant 
commander of the Baltic fleet” the following quotation was made 
by gallant Berkeley: 

“It has not been in my power to do anything with this powerful fleet; for 
attacking either Kronstadt or Sweaborg would have been certain destruction.” 

This was not all. Brave Berkeley exulting at what the most 
powerful fleet could not do, went on babbling: 

“Admiral Chads, than whom no man possesses a greater amount of scientific 
knowledge, wrote also in these terms: ‘After two days inspection from the 
lighthouse, and full views of the forts and ships, the former are too substantial for 

the fire of ships. They are large masses of granite. With respect to an attack on the 
ships where they are, it is not to be entertained.’” 

As to Napier, brave Berkeley concludes with the words: 

“There never was a British officer who had more completely carte blanche to 
undertake what he pleased. So far from his hands being tied up by the 
Government it has afforded him every encouragement to proceed” 

from Bomarsund to Kronstadt, and from Kronstadt to Bomar- 
sund. 

On the remark of Mr. Hildyard, a Tory, that “in the whole 
course of his life he never heard such indiscretion,” that Berkeley 
had spoken as a plain agent of Russia, and that all the 
rodomontades about Kronstadt had notwithstanding experienced 
his silent approval, brave Berkeley recanted his indiscretions so far 

as to say that Napier had only spoken of his present position with 
ships alone, and without being backed by any land forces. That. 
nothing could be done in the Baltic without land troops and 
without an alliance with Sweden, I have repeated to you all the 
time, since Napier left the English shores,* and my opinion was 
participated in by every scientific military man. 

I come now to the last point of this memorable debate, the 
magisterial declarations of Lord John Russell. After having got his 
note for 3,000,000 he was as barefaced as he was shamefaced, 20 
hours before, when quailing under the sarcasms of Disraeli. 

“He certainly did not think it necessary to give any further explanation of the 
statements which he made last night.” 

As to the “painful distinctions” which certain parties had 
attempted to draw between Aberdeen and his colleagues, he would 
tell them that 

“with regard to the general measures of the war, those measures had been 
considered, step by step, by those advisers of Her Majesty who are usually called 
the Cabinet, and for the decisions which had been adopted, all the colleagues of 
Lord Aberdeen are alike responsible to Parliament and the country with that 
noble Lord.” 

In fact, he dared—but at no risk—to tell the House: 

“If we are fit to be ministers of the Crown, we are fit to have the discretion to 
call or not to cal] Parliament together; if we are not fit to have that discretion, on 
the other hand, we are no longer fit to remain the ministers of the Crown.” 

Being present at the sittings of the English Parliament on 
Monday and Tuesday, I confess to my error in having stigmatized, 
in 1848, in the New-Rhenish Gazette” the Berlin and Frankfort 
assemblies as the lowest possible expressions of Parliamentary life.‘ 

It will be amusing for your readers to see opposed to the 
declarations of Woronzoff’s British brother-in-law,’ the fades‘ 
bravadoes of a Russell, and the roaring leaders of The Times, the 
following extracts from the latest letter of The Times correspon- 
dent at the British camp near Varna, dated July 13. 

“The night before this there was a general belief that peace would soon be 
proclaimed, inasmuch as an Austrian Envoy. was reported to be dining with Gen. 

Brown, and this Austrian Envoy was on his way from Shumla, where he had held 
long interviews with Omer Pasha, to Varna, where he was to consult with Lord 
Raglan and Marshal St. Arnaud. It was reported that the Duke of Cambridge had 
said that the cavalry would be home by November, and the infantry by May. Surely 
it cannot be affirmed we are at war, or that the allied armies have taken a 
belligerent part, or exhibited warlike actions since they landed in Turkey. Our 
parades, reviews, drills, and inspections are as harmless, as innocent, as if they took 
place at Satory or at Chobham, and our whole operations of offence by land have 
been confined to, first, a reconnoitering excursion by Lord Cardigan; secondly, the 
dispatch of some engineer officers and sappers to Silistria and Rustchuk; thirdly, 
the march of a few French pontoniers in the same direction; and, fourthly, the 
further dispatch of a company of sappers and of 150 sailors to Rustchuk, to 
construct a bridge across from the bank to the islands and thence across to the 
other side.”* : 

There exists no Bastille in England, but there exist lunatic 
asylums to which every individual obnoxious to the Court, or 
standing in the way of certain family arrangements, may simply be 
confined by a lettre de cachet. In Wednesday’s debate on the case of 
Dr. Peitman,” this was fully proved by Mr. Otway, backed by Mr. 
Henley. There were wanted only some words of Lord Palmerston, 
the civis Romanus,’” and the notorious advocate of “the rights and 
privileges of the British subject’”—and the subject [was] dropped. 
Palmerston did not so much as pretend that Peitman was a real 
madman, but only that “he appeared to imagine to have some 
claim upon Government,” and imagining to pursue that claim in a 
very troublesome way to the Queen, or rather that anonymous 
personage called Prince Albert. The Coburgs are everywhere; they 
pretend at this very moment to appropriate the Spanish nation.‘ 

“It is,” says the Ministerial Globe,“a question of the rights of the doctor and of 
the rights of the Queen, and we believe that there is no man in or out of 
Parliament who can hesitate in balancing these rights.” 

No wonder, then, that Thomas Paine’s “Rights of Man” were 
publicly burned in this free and blessed country.?” 

Another little Parliamentary comedy was performed on the 
same Wednesday evening. At the sitting of last Friday,’ Mr. Butt 
had moved the resolution that British. subjects should be 
forbidden, under certain penalties, to trade in Russian Government 
securities; this bill relating only to loans contracted by the Russian 

* Report from Varna of July 13, 1854. The Times, No. 21805, July 28, 

Government during the present war. The British Government had 
not proposed the bill, but it could hardly dare to oppose it, as 
Bonaparte had already falsely announced in the Moniteur that the 
British Government concurred with him in considering subscrip- 
tions to the Russian loan as illegal.* Palmerston, therefore, 
supported Mr. Butt’s motion, but found himself opposed in no 
very courteous manner by Mr. Wilson, the sage editor of The 
Economist, and Secretary of the Treasury. Now, on Wednesday the 
same Palmerston, having defended the Coalition Cabinet on 
Monday, having abstained from speaking on Tuesday and thus. 
secured the real success of the Coalition, could not but seize upon 
_this opportunity to resume his position as the “unprotected 
female” of the Cabinet. He spoke with the aspect and in the tone 
of a male Sibyl, as if overpowered by the spontaneous explosion of 
his patriotic feelings, which he, poor man, was forced to suppress 
on the two preceding evenings, fettered as he was by the cold 
necessity of an official position. He elicited the inevitable cheers of 
the honorable and deluded gentlemen when he declared 

“the bill simply affirmed the principle that British subjects should not supply 
the Russians with funds to carry on the war. The arguments adduced by the 

Secretary of the Treasury went to show that we should abolish our laws of high 
treason. Such arguments were sheer nonsense.” 

Note that this is the same man who, during twenty-four years, 
imposed the Russo-Dutch loan *** upon England, and is at this very 
moment the most influential member of a Cabinet which continues 
to pay the capital and interest of that loan, thus supplying him 
with “funds to carry on the war.” 

Written on July 28, 1854 Reproduced from the New-York