London, May 23. The menacing discontent in the allied Army 
and Navy outside Sevastopol caused by the recall of the Kerch 
expedition has found an echo, if only a weak, faint one, in the 
London press. People are beginning to fear that the unity and 
artistic course of the war drama in the Crimea are threatened less 
by the Russians than by the presumptuous and capricious 
intervention of a deus ex machina,* the military genius of Napo- 
leon III. The exhibition of this genius in the well-known 
strategic didactical “‘essay” in the Moniteur is in fact anything but 
soothing and reassuring. Until now, however, the distance between 
the theatre of war and the Tuileries has provided a kind of 
guarantee against actual interference by the military dilettantism 
of Paris. Now submarine telegraph has eliminated the distances, 
-and with the distances the guarantee, and John Bull, who is wont 
to call himself “the most thinking people of the world”, is 
beginning to reflect, to grumble and complain that the British 
Army and Navy are expected to furnish the corpus vile for the 
inherited and providentially existing “military genius’, to perform 
his experiments on. 

Today’s Morning Herald* asserts positively that the expedition 
has been recalled because Bonaparte has revived his dangerous 
idea of storming Sevastopol from the south side. We do not doubt 
for a moment that the military genius of the Tuileries is obsessed 
by this idée fixe, but we cannot persuade ourselves that even a 
simple sabreur such as Pélissier is capable of carrying out such a 
senselessly ruinous plan. Hence we believe that it has been decided 
to attempt a mass crossing of the Chernaya and that it was 
deemed inadvisable to split the main force by detaching a corps of 
12,000 men. In fact, instead of detaching these 12,000 men, just 
before the army sets out, 15,000-20,000 Turks ought to be embarked 
in Eupatoria and incorporated into the main army, only leaving 
behind a garrison of sufficient size to hold the place. As stated in an 
earlier letter,“ the entire success of the campaign depends on the 
strength of the army that crosses the Chernaya. However that may 
be, the recall of the Kerch expedition is fresh evidence of the 
uncertainty and vacillation and the shilly-shallying bungling that are 
nowadays passed off as “idées napoléoniennes”. 

Meanwhile the heroes improvised for the purpose of the coup 
d'état wear out with incredible rapidity. The array was headed by 
Espinasse, who after his ignominious campaign in the Dobrudja' 
was forced by the Zouaves to retreat head over heels to Paris. This 
Espinasse is the same man who, after being entrusted with 
guarding the building of the National Assembly, handed it over 
to its enemies.'*' The second in the line of descent was Leroy, 
alias Saint-Arnaud, the War Minister of December 2. He was followed 
by Forey, so bold in the persecution of the unfortunate peas- 
ants of south-east France, and so considerately humane towards 
the Muscovites. The army’s suspicion that he was revealing the se- 
crets of the French Council of War to the Russians made it neces- 
sary to remove him from the Crimea to Africa. Finally Canrobert 
was demoted on account of notorious incompetence. The irony of 
history has appointed Pélissier as his successor, and thus more or 
less commander-in-chief of the Anglo-French army—the same 
Pélissier of whom in 1841 it was asserted over and over again in 
Parliament, in London officers’ clubs and at country-meetings,° in 
The Times and in Punch, that no honourable English officer could 

ever serve alongside “that ferocious monster”.* And now the 
British Army is not only serving alongside him, but under 
him—the entire British Army! Just after the Whigs and their 
Foreign Secretary Palmerston had been defeated by the Tories, 
Palmerston called a meeting of his constituents in Tiverton and 
proved his right to break the Anglo-French alliance and unite with 
Russia by the fact that the French government, that Louis Philippe 
was employing such a “monster” as Pélissier in his service. It must 
be admitted that while the French Army is paying dearly for its 
revolt in December, things are not all “roses” for England either, 
in its alliance with the restored empire. 

The Ministry suffered a defeat in the Commons yesterday, 
which proves nothing except that Parliament occasionally avenges 
itself on the Ministers for the scorn it enjoys “out of doors”.” A 
certain Mr. Wise tabled the motion, that 

“it is the opinion of this House that complete revision of our diplomatic 

establishments recommended in the report of the Select Committee of 1850 on 
Official Salaries should be carried into effect’.“ 

Mr. Wise is a friend of Palmerston. His motion has been drifting 
about on the agenda of the House for about two years without 
coming up for discussion. Chance yesterday cast it before the 
discontented Commons. Wise made his speech, thinking that, after 
a few remarks by Palmerston, he would be able to play the usual 
game and withdraw his motion. But in contravention of the 
agreement Mr. Baillie picked up the motion that Wise had 
dropped and it was carried, despite Wise and Palmerston, by a 
majority of 112 to 57. This defeat did not in the least worry an 
old experienced tactician like Palmerston for he knows that in 
order to preserve an appearance of independence the House must 
occasionally condemn a ministerial motion to death and promote 
an anti-ministerial motion to life. Disraeli’s motion, on the other 
hand, had the effect of an electric shock on the ministerial 
benches.'*” Palmerston himself, a master at parliamentary play- 
acting, congratulated “the writers and actors of this unforgettable 
scene”. This was not irony. It was the involuntary tribute of an 
artist to his rival when the latter beats him at his own game. In the 
Monday sitting’ Palmerston had toyed so skilfully with Milner 

reported in The Times, No. 22061, May 23, 1855.— Ed. 
4 May 21, 1855.— Ed. 

Gibson and Gladstone and Herbert and Bright and Lord Vane 
that it seemed certain that all debates on foreign policy would be 
postponed until after Whitsun, the Ministry and House being 
obliged to proceed in a particular manner, and that the noble 
Viscount could be sure of a dictatorship of several weeks’ 
duration. The only day still available for debate, Thursday,* was 
reserved for Layard’s reform motion. So no one could prevent 
Palmerston from concluding peace over Whitsun and, as he has 
done more than once, surprising the House when it re-assembled 
with one of his notorious treaties. The House, for its own part, 
might not have been unwilling to submit to this fate of surprise. 
Peace made behind its back, even peace a tout prix, was acceptable 
with a few post festum gestures of protest for decency’s sake. But 
the moment the House and the Ministry were obliged to declare 
their views before the adjournment, the latter could no longer 
spring any surprises, nor the former let itself be taken un- 
awares. Hence the consternation when Disraeli got up and tabled 
his motion and Layard relinquished his day to Disraeli. This “con- 
spiracy between Layard and Disraeli”, as the Post called the 
affair, thus brought to naught all the skilful manoeuvring since 
the “end” of the Vienna Conference, which has not yet been 
concluded.’