The speech delivered by Kossuth, at Sheffield,* is the most 
substantial ever heard from him during his stay in England. 
Nevertheless one cannot help finding fault with it. Its historical 
expositions are partly incorrect. To date tne decline of Turkey 
from the support given by Sobieski to the Austrian capital, is a 
proposition for which no grounds whatever exist. The researches 
of Hammer” prove beyond dispute that the organization of the 
Turkish Empire was at that period already in a state of 
dissolution, and that the epoch of Ottoman grandeur and strength 
had been rapidly disappearing for some time before. Similarly 
incorrect was the proposition that Napoleon discarded the idea of 
attacking Russia by sea for other reasons than those suggested by 
his having no fleet, and his being excluded from the command of 
the ocean by the British. The menace that if England entered into 
alliance with Austria, Hungary might ally herself with Russia, was 
an act of imprudence. In the first place it furnished a weapon to 
the ministerial journals, of which The Times has not failed to make 
ample use by “convicting” all revolutionists as agents of Russia.‘ 
Secondly, it came with a singular propriety from the lips of the 
man whose ministry already in 1849 had offered the Hungarian 
crown to a Cesarewitch. Lastly, how could he deny that if ever his 
threat should be carried into execution, either at his own or 
others’ instigation, the national existence of the Magyar race would 

No. 21761, June 7, 1854.— Ed. 

“ The Times, No. 21762, June 8, 1854, leader.— Ed. 

be doomed to annihilation, the major part of the population of 
Hungary being Slavonians? It was equally a mistake to describe the 
war against Russia as a war between liberty and despotism. Apart 
from the fact that if such be the case, liberty would be for the 
nonce represented by a Bonaparte, the whole avowed object of the 
war is the maintenance of the balance of power, and of the Vienna 
treaties—those very treaties which annul the liberty and indepen- 
dence of nations. 

A more than usually vigorous speech has also been delivered by 
Mr. Urquhart at Birmingham, where he developed again his 
charge of treachery against the Coalition. However, as Mr. 
Urquhart is strictly opposed to the only party prepared to 
overthrow the rotten Parliamentary basis on which the Coalition 
Government of the Oligarchy rests, all his speeches are as much to 
the purpose as if they were addressed to the clouds. 

In the House of Commons, last night, Lord John Russell 
announced the formation of a special Ministry of War, which 
ministry, however, is not to absorb the various departments at 
present constituting the administration of war, but only to have a 
nominal superintendence over all.* The only merit of the change is 
the erection of a new ministerial place. With regard to the 
appointment, The Morning Post of yesterday stated that the 
Peelite section of the Cabinet had been victorious, and that the 
Duke of Newcastle would become the new Secretary for War, 
while the Colonies would be offered to Lord John Russell.” The 
Globe of last evening confirmed this statement, adding that, as 
Lord John was not likely to accept, Sir George Grey would be 
nominated Colonial Secretary. Although the Peelite journals affect 
still to be ignorant of a final decision, the Palmerstonian journal‘ 
of to-day announces in positive terms that the Duke of Newcastle 
and Sir George Grey have been appointed. 

The Morning Post has the following in reference to the Austrian 
“peremptory summons:” 

“We have reason to believe that Russia will not treat the Austrian communica- 
tion with silence, nor meet it by a refusal, and we shall not be surprised if we 
shortly learn that Russia is disposed to accept the Austrian proposal for the 
complete evacuation of the Turkish territory, on condition that Austria shall 
arrange an armistice with a view to negotiation.”@ 

* The Times, No. 21763, June 9, 1854.— Ed. 
The Morning Post, No. 25095, June 8, 1854, leader.— Ed. 

The Morning Chronicle of to-day likewise grants that ‘the 
communication may be of the greatest importance”. It adds, 
nevertheless, that it must not be considered as an ultimatum, that 
it is couched in the usual courteous language, and that a rupture 
was only held out in case Russia should ignore the communication 
altogether. If Russia gave an evasive answer, or made a partial 
concession, new suggestions and negotiations might follow. 

Let us suppose, for a moment, that the assumption of The Post 
was just, and about to be realized; it will be seen that the service 
rendered by Austria would be only to procure another armistice in 
favor of Russia. It is highly probable that something like this may 
have been contemplated, founded on the supposition that Silistria, 
in the meantime, would fall, and the ‘‘character and honor of the 
Czar” be guaranteed. The whole scheme, however, must fall to the 
ground, if Silistria holds out, and the valor of the Turks should at 
last force the allied troops to enter into the campaign, much as it 
may be against the inclination of their commanders and Govern- 
ments. 

If there be anything fit to render the frequent gaps and 
omissions in this great war less unendurable, it is the amusing 
uncertainty of the English press and public about the value and 
the reality of the alliance between the western and the German 
powers. Scarcely is the “peremptory summons” of Austria started 
to the satisfaction of all the world, when all the world is distressed 
by the news of a meeting between the Austrian and Prussian 
monarchs, a meeting which, in the words of The Times, “forbodes 
no good to the western powers.” 

The Board of. Trade tables for the last month have been 
published.* The results are less favorable than those of the 
preceding months. The declared value of exports has fallen off 
£747,527, as compared with the corresponding month of 1853.” 
The articles chiefly affected have been those connected with the 
Manchester markets; but linen, woolen and silk manufactures 
likewise exhibit a decline. 

In the usual monthly circular of Messrs. Sturge of Birmingham, 
we read that the wheat-plant has not tillered nor stooled well, and 
this is accounted for in the following way: 

“The high price of seed caused a smaller quantity to be used per acre than in 
ordinary years, and the inferiority of the wheat of last year’s growth committed to 

No, 562, June 3, 1854.— Ed. 

“Our Trade”, The Economist, No. 562, June 3, 1854.— Ed. 

the soil may not have done so well as would have been the case if it had been better 
harvested.” 

In regard to this statement, The Mark Lane Express observes: 

“This inference appears to us exceedingly probable and deserving of attention, 
as unsound seed can scarcely be expected to produce so healthy a plant as that 
gathered under more auspicious circumstances. The progress of the growing crop 
will be watched with more than ordinary interest, it being an admitted fact that 
stocks, not only in this country but almost in all parts of the world, have, owing to 
the extreme deficiency of the harvest of 1853, been reduced into a very narrow 
compass. The future range of prices will depend mainly on the character of the 
weather; the present value of wheat is too high to encourage speculation, and 
though it is more than probable that the supplies from abroad will, during the next 
three months, be on a much less liberal scale than they have hitherto been, still, if 
nothing should occur to give rise to uneasiness in respect to the probable result of 
the next harvest, those having anything to dispose of will naturally be anxious to 
clear out old stocks, while millers and others are likely to act on the hand-to-mouth 
system.... At the same time, it must be borne in mind that the country generally is 
bare of wheat.” 

You cannot at present pass through the streets of London 
without being stopped by crowds assembled before patriotic 
pictures exhibiting the interesting group of the Sultan, Bonaparte 
and Victoria— “the three saviors of civilization.” To help you to a 
full appreciation of the characters of the personages who are now 
charged with saving civilization, after having “saved society,” I 
resume my sketch of their generalissimo, Marshal St. Arnaud.’ 

The famous days of July '”? rescued Jacques Leroy, (old style), or 
Jacques Achille Leroy de St. Arnaud, (new style), from the grasp 
of his creditors. The grave question then arose how to improve 
the circumstance of French society being thrown into a general 
confusion by the sudden fall of the old regime. Achille had not 
participated in the battle of the three days, nor could he pretend 
to have done so, the fact being too notorious that at the 
memorable epoch he found himself carefully locked up in a cell at 
St. Pélagie. He was therefore unable to claim, like many other 
adventurers of the day, any remuneration under the false pretense 
of having been a combattant of July. On the other hand, the success 
of the bourgeois regime appeared by no means favorable for this 
notorious outcast of the Parisian Bohemia, who had always 
professed an implicit faith in Legitimacy, and never belonged to 
the Society of the “Aide-Toi,”* (a want of foresight which he has 
mended by becoming one of the first members of the Society of 
the “Dix-mille,”)'’ nor played any part whatever in the great 
“comedv of fifteen years.”’ Achille, however, had learned some- 

thing from his ancient master, M. E. de P.,* in the art of 
extemporization. He boldly presented himself at the War Office, 
pretending to be a non-commissioned officer who, from political 
motives, had tendered his resignation at the time of the 
Restoration. His banishment from the Gardes du Corps,” his 
expulsion from the Corsican Legion, his absence from the ranks of 
the 5lst Regiment setting out for the colonies, were easily turned 
into as many proofs of his eccentric patriotism, and of the 
persecution he had suffered at the hands of the Bourbons. The 
conduct-list gave his assertions the lie, but the War Office feigned 
to believe in their truth. The withdrawal of numerous officers 
refusing to take the oath under Louis Philippe had caused a great 
void which must be filled up, and every public apostasy from 
Legitimacy, whatever might have been the motives of the conver- 
sion, was accepted as a valuable support to the usurper’s 
government. Achille, consequently, was commissioned in the 64th 
Regiment of the Line, but not without undergoing the humiliation 
of being simply rehabilitated in his post of non-commissioned 
officer, instead of being promoted to a higher grade, like the 
others who had resigned under the Restoration. 

Time and his brevet, advanced him at last to the rank of 
lieutenant. At the same time he was given an opportunity to make 
valid his special talents of servile apostasy. In 1832 his regiment 
was quartered at Parthenay, in the midst of the Legitimist 
insurrection of the Vendée. His former connection with some 
former Gardes du Corps, rallied around the Duchess of Berry, 
enabled him to combine the offices of soldier and of police-spy—a 
combination singularly agreeing with the genius matured in the 
gaming houses of London and the cafés borgnes of Paris. The 
Duchess of Berry having been sold by the Jew Deutz to Mons. 
Thiers was arrested at Nantes, and Achille became intrusted with 
the mission of accompanying her to Blaye, where he was to act as 
one of her jailers under the orders of General Bugeaud.'” 
Anxious not to let slip the occasion of exhibiting a conspicuous 
zeal for the dynastic interest, he over-shot the mark, and contrived 
to scandalize even Bugeaud himself by the abject services he 
allowed the police to impose upon him, and the brutal treatment 
to which he subjected the Duchess. Bugeaud, however, had not 
the power to dismiss an aide-de-camp whom the police had 

selected for the special duty of guarding the Duchess, who was 
under the particular superintendence of M. Joly, the Commissary 
of Police, and who, after all, depended more on the Ministry of 
the Interior than on that of War. The future generalissimo of the 
Anglo-French troops played the part of the mid-wife, it being his 
special mission to state and prove by witnesses the pregnancy of 
the Duchess, the discovery of which dealt the death-blow to the 
partisans of the old régime. It was in this same quality that the 
name of M. de St. Arnaud figured for the first time in the 
Moniteur, in whose columns of May 1833, we read that 

“M. Achille de St. Arnaud, thirty-four years old, habitually residing at Paris, 
aide-de-camp to General Bugeaud, was summoned to sign, in his official capacity, 
the act of birth of the child of which the Duchess was delivered at her prison on 
May 10, 1833”.* 

The gallant St. Arnaud continuing to play his part of a jailer, 
accompanied the Duchess on board the corvette which disem- 
barked her at Palermo. 

Having returned to France, Achille became the laughing stock 
and the scapegoat of his regiment. Disliked by the other officers, 
excluded from their réunions, harassed by undisguised proofs of 
their utter contempt, put as it were in quarantine by the whole 
regiment, he was forced to take refuge in the Foreign Legion at 
Algiers, which was then organizing at Paris under the care of 
Colonel Bedeau. This Foreign Legion may be fairly characterized 
as the Society of the Tenth December of the European armies. 
Notorious desperadoes, adventurers of broken fortune, deserters 
from all countries, the general offal of the European armies, 
constituted the nucleus of this corps d’élite, which was properly! 
called the refugium peccatorum.” There was no situation that could 
have better suited the genius of Achille than the fellowship of such 
a corps, the official mission of which preserved it from the fangs 
of the police, while the character of its constituting members 
removed all the checks weighing on the officers of the regular 
army. Notwithstanding Achille’s habitual prodigality, he gave such 
slender proofs of military courage and capacity that he continued 
to vegetate during four years in the subaltern place of lieutenant 
in the Ist battalion of the Foreign Legion, until on the 15th 
August, 1837 when a new brevet conferred upon him the rank of 
captain. It is an unhappy circumstance that the company’s chest is 

placed under the control of the captains in the French army, who 
are accountable for the pay of the men and their provisions. 
Chests were exactly the spot in which the modern Achille was most 
vulnerable; and thus it happened that some months after his 
promotion a terrible deficit was discovered in his. The Inspector- 
General, M. de Rulliere, having detected this embezzlement, 
insisted on the punishment of the captain. The report to the 
Ministry was ready, it was on the point of being committed to the 
post, and M. de St. Arnaud would have been lost forever, if 
M. Bedeau, his lieutenant-colonel, affected by the despair of his 
inferior, had not interfered and appeased the wrath of General 
Rulliere.* 

St. Arnaud has quite a manner of his own of showing his 
gratitude for past obligations. Appointed to the ministry of war, 
on the eve of the coup d'état,” he caused General Bedeau to be 
arrested, and struck the name of General Rulliére from the lists. 
Rullière addressed to him the following letter, which he circulated 
among his friends at Paris, and published in the Belgian journals: 

“In 1837, the General Rulliere refused to break the sword of the Captain 
Leroy de St. Arnaud, unwilling to dishonor him; in 1851, the Minister of War, 
Leroy de St. Arnaud, unable to dishonor the General Rulliére, has broken his 
sword.” © 

Written on June 9, 1854 Reproduced from the New-York