London, January 8. While clubs and newspapers here are fully 
occupied with self-important gossip about “ministerial crises”, they 
have no time to realise the far more important fact that once again 
one of the great British crises in trade and industry has broken out, and 
in more calamitous dimensions than in 1847 and 1836. At long 
last this realisation—which had not been produced even by the 
bankruptcies which have been breaking out sporadically for the 
past three months and recently increased in number - and 
intensity—has become unavoidable as a result of the publication 
of the annual trade reports and of the tables issued by the Board 
of Trade* which give the export and import figures for the past 
eleven months.” It follows from these figures that exports have 
decreased by £1,710,677, if compared with the corresponding 
eleven months of the year 1853, and by £1,856,988 when only the 
last month of both years—November 5 to December 5—is 
compared. From the export figures we have taken the following 
details which show a decline in some of the most important 
branches of industry: 

from the United Kingdom”, The Economist, No. 593, January 6, 1855.— Ed. 

1853 1854 
£ £ 
Cotton Manufacture .........ccccccccccescesecceseccesessssecuseseceeseese 23,757,155 22,877,050 
COLEON VAIN ash ose ius eae tna edeodeacens pnaeacuas aera ane a 6,322,639 6,055,640 
Linen manufacture ...........cccccccccceesccceeescscceeseeeeuenseecsaeeses 4,379,732 3,735,221 
BSAA HALL 250 ccs sancencatiaueegetteattacot se neanaieeeedomea uti 1,069,812 852,763 
WOOl Manufacture secgideseciaesccuevet snndtseveveluderscdetdecerosaedseens 9,470,413 8,566,723 
Sik Manufacture: esas cscsscscssvaksisxaeiecsnns elboese aes 1,492,785 1,144,506 
Export Of Machinery seecoocd aoe Nasigelgs ts aeedeeleeitiest 1,368,027 1,271,503 

In the trade reports an attempt is of course made to blame the 
war for the crisis of 1854, just as the revolution of 1848 was 
blamed for a crisis which had already broken out in 1847. 
However, this time even the London Economist—which, as a 
matter of principle, tends to explain all crises as due to accidental 
circumstances, extraneous to trade and industry —has been forced 
to admit that the commercial misfortunes and losses of 1854 are 
the beginning of a natural reaction against the “convulsive 
prosperity” of 1853. In other words, the commercial cycle has 
again reached the point where overproduction and _ over- 
speculation turn into a crisis. Most effective proof: the United States 
of North America, which were affected by the oriental war*'? only 
insofar as it gave an unheard-of impetus to shipbuilding 
and shipping trade, and created markets for many Ameri- 
can raw products formerly supplied exclusively by Russia. In the 
United States the crisis has already lasted more than four months 
and is still growing steadily, although already 109 of 4,208 banks, 
or about 2'/, per cent; have gone bankrupt; moreover, there has 
been such a stagnation of industry combined with such a 
depression of wages in the industrial states of the East that last 
month more than 4,000 European immigrants “migrated back’ to 
Europe. The American crisis of 1837 followed on the British crisis of 
1836. This time the course is reversed. America has taken the 
initiative in the matter of bankruptcies. The United States and 
Australia are equally flooded with British products. How impor- 
tant this is for British trade can be seen from the fact that out of 
approximately £100 million which Great Britain exported in the 
form of goods in 1853, £25 million went to the United States and 
£15. million to Australia. After the United States and Australia, 
the East Indies were the most important export market. However, 
even in 1852 the East Indies were so glutted that only by an 
entirely new expansion of trade across the Punjab and Sind to 
Bokhara, Afghanistan and Baluchistan and from there, on the one 

hand, to Central Asia, and on the other hand to Persia, could 
exports with difficulty be kept at the old level of £8 million. Now 
even in those areas all outlets are so congested that, a short while 
ago, goods were shipped from Hindustan to Australia, thus 
“carrying coals to Newcastle’. The only market which, due to the 
oriental war, was for a time supplied “cautiously”, was the 
Levantine market. However, it is an open secret in the City that, 
since the crisis in the United States and stagnation in Australia 
forced the commercial world to look out anxiously for any markets 
not yet glutted, Constantinople has become the store-house for all 
goods requiring buyers, and it, too, must now be considered as 
“closed”. Similarly, the most recent movement in Spain has been 
used to smuggle in as much British merchandise as the country 
can hold. The last attempt of this kind is now being made in 
South American countries whose very small consumer capacity 
requires no proof. 

In view of the vital importance of the British crisis for the social 
and politica] state of the whole world, it will be necessary to return 
at greater length and in more detail to the history of British trade 
before 1854. 

II 

London, January 9. The increase of British trade and of British 
industry in the period 1849 to 1853 may be judged by the 
following figures. In 1846 the tonnage of ships carrying goods 
from and into British seaports amounted to 9,499,000, in 1850 this 
had increased to 12,020,000 tons, and in 1853 to no less than 
15,381,000, exactly double the tonnage of 1843. In 1846 the value 
of exported British manufactured goods and raw materials was 
£57,786,000, in 1850 £71,367,000, and in 1853 more than 
£98,000,000, that is to say, more than double the total exports of 
1842. What part is played by the United States of North America 
and by Australia in this increase in exports? In 1842, the value of 
British exports to Australia amounted to less than £1,000,000, in 
1850 they reached almost three million, and in 1853 as much as 
£14,513,000. In 1842, exports to the United States amounted to 
£3,582,000, in 1850 to almost 15 million, and in 1853 to no less 
than £23,658,000. 

From these figures it follows, first of all, that the year 1854 
represents a turning-point in the history of modern trade, 
analogous to the years 1825, 1836 and 1847; secondly, that the 
crisis in the United States is only a factor of the British crisis, and 

finally that the war of 1854—called, most aptly, une guerre 
pacifique by the Pays, Journal de l’Empire—has exercised no 
influence whatever on this social catastrophe, or, if any influence 
at all, it has been restricting and inhibiting. Individual branches of 
industry, e.g. the manufacture of leather, iron and woollen goods, 
as well as ship-building, have actually been helped by the demand 
created by the war. For a short time, the consternation caused by a 
declaration of war after forty years of peace, paralysed the flight 
of speculation. The loans of various European countries brought 
about by the war kept interest rates at a level which prevented 
rash industrial undertakings and thus retarded the crisis. How- 
ever, says the Peace Society, *!* has not the war raised corn prices? 
Is not the rising of corn prices tantamount to a decline in domestic 
trade,” 1.e. in British consumption of industrial products? And is 
not this contraction of the home market the main element of the 
crisis?—To begin with, it must be remembered that the year of 
greatest British prosperity— 1853—was a year of high corn prices, 
and that corn prices of 1854 range, on average, below those of 
1853, so that neither the prosperity of 1853 nor the crisis 
symptoms of 1854 can be explained from the level of corn prices. 
However, leaving aside the influence of corn prices on industry 
for the time being: what influence has the war had on corn prices? 
In other words: have corn prices risen, because supplies from 
Russia have dropped? Of the total corn and flour which Great 
Britain imports, Russia’s share is about 19 per cent, and as total 
imports satisfy only about 20 per cent of national consumption, 
Russia supplies some 2'/. per cent of national consumption. 
The latest official report on the comparative corn and flour 
imports from different continents and countries to Great Britain 
was published at the beginning of November 1854,” giving a 
comparative table for the first nine months of 1853 and 1854. 
According to this, in 1853 the total imports of wheat amounted to 
3,770,921 quarters, of which 773,507 came from Russia and 
209,000 quarters from Moldavia and Wallachia. Total imports of 
flour amounted to 3,800,746 hundredweights, of which Russia 
supplied 64 and the Danubian Principalities none at all. In the war 
year 1854, Great Britain received 505,000 quarters of wheat from 
Russia and 118,000 quarters from Moldavia and Wallachia. No 
one would wish to claim that this reduction (which, moreover, was 

November 4, 1854.— Ed. 

offset by larger imports of flour from other countries) has pushed 
up the prices of the excellent harvest of 1854 to approximately the 
level of the bad years, 1852 and 1853. On the contrary. Even a 
total cessation of Russian grain imports would not have had that 
effect. What remains enigmatic—although unimportant as far as 
the economic question is concerned—is the reduction of supplies 
from the Danubian Principalities. The solution of the riddle is 
simple. Though nominally the Coalition has blockaded the Russian 
Black Sea ports, im fact, however, it has blockaded first the 
Bosphorus and later the mouth of the Danube; instead of Russia, 
it blockaded Turkey and the Danubian Principalities. The Russian 
crusades against the Crescent—of 1812, 1828, 1848 (at that time 
reputedly against the rebels of Jassy and Bucharest) and 1854— 
were, as everyone knows, partly determined by trade competition 
of the southern Russian provinces against the Danubian Prin- 
cipalities and, incidentally, against the Danube trade of Bosnia, 
Serbia and Bulgaria. What a stroke of genius, therefore, on the part 
of an English Ministry to punish Russia by leaving her trade at 
Odessa and Taganrog free, but suppressing, blockading the trade 
of Russia’s competitors on the Danube, thus cutting off their own 
li.e. England’s] supplies. 

Ii] 

London, January 16. With reference to the present crisis in trade 
and industry, the London Economist remarks: 

“Whatever may be the falling off in the export of other articles, there is none in 
machinery. The value in 1854 exceeds the value in 1853. Other countries, 
therefore, are now taking into use our machinery. We have no longer any 
advantage of this kind over them. France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Switzer- 
land, and the United States are all now great manufacturing countries; and some 
of them have advantages over us. We have a race to run, and we cannot succeed if 
we tie our legs. [...] Experience has satisfied every person that the restrictions 
imposed for the benefit of the landlord injured him, that restrictions imposed for 
the benefit of the master manufacturers injured them; and by and by the factory 
workers will find out that the restriction imposed for their benefit will injure them. 
It is to be hoped, however, that they will find it out before the countries before 
mentioned have made such progress as to supersede England in their own and 
third markets, and have reduced the factory hands to destitution.” * 

Mr. Wilson, editor of The Economist and factotum in the Ministry 
of Finance of the anointed and unctuous Mr. Gladstone, apostle of 
freedom and place-hunter rolled into one, a man who in one 

column of his paper denies the necessity of the state in general 
and in another proves the indispensability of the coalition 
government in particular—Mr. Wilson, then, begins his homily 
with a deliberately distorted fact. The export tables for 1854* 
contain two columns on the export of machinery. The first, 
relating to railway locomotives, shows that in 1853 exports 
amounted to £443,254, but in 1854 to £525,702 which is 
undoubtedly an increase of £82,448. The second column, how- 
ever, which includes all machines used in factories, i.e. every kind 
of machinery except locomotives, shows £1,368,027 for 1853, as 
against £1,271,503 for 1854, or a decrease of £96,524. If both 
columns are taken together, they reveal a decrease of £14,076. 
This detail is characteristic of the gentlemen of the Manchester 
school. They consider the present moment opportune for the 
abolition of “restrictions” benefiting industrial workers, that is the 
legal limitation of the working hours of young people under 18, of 
women, and of children under 12. To achieve so lofty a purpose, 
the falsification of a few figures may surely be permitted. But, 
according to the Manchester Examiner, the special organ of the 
Quaker Bright, and to every trade circular in the factory districts, 
the foreign markets, those traditional outlets for our surplus 
manufactures, are groaning under the weight of our over- 
production and over-speculation. 

If such glutting of the world market has been achieved in spite 
of the improvisation of two new golden markets— Australia and 
California, in spite of the electric telegraph which has transformed 
the whole of Europe into one big commodity exchange, in spite of 
railways and steamships which have improved communication, and 
therefore commerce, to an incredible degree,—how long would it 
have taken for the crisis to come if the factory owner had been at 
liberty to order his workers to work eighteen hours instead of 
eleven? The arithmetical problem is too simple to require a 
solution. However, the relative acceleration of the crisis would not 
have been the only difference. A whole generation of workers 
would have forfeited 50 per cent of their physical strength, 
spiritual development and vitality. The same Manchester school 
which will answer our misgivings with the words: 

[why] should this distress distress us, 

January 6, 1855.— Ed. 

deafens England with sentimental lamentations about the human 
sacrifice which is the price of her war with Russia, the price of any 
war! In a few days we shall hear Mr. Cobden at Leeds, protesting 
against the mutual slaughter of Christians. In a few weeks we shall 
hear him in Parliament, protesting against the “restrictions” which 
impede the too rapid consumption of human beings in the 
factories. Does he, of all heroic deeds, consider only one to be 
justified, that of Herod? 

We agree with the Manchester school that compulsory legal 
restrictions of working hours do not exactly indicate a high level 
of social development. But we find the fault not in the laws, but in 
the conditions which make them necessary. 

IV 

London, January 22. It is well known that the Chancellor of the 
Exchequer, Mr. Robinson, opened the Parliament of 1825 with a 
dithyramb on the unprecedented boom in trade and industry.* 
Some weeks later, the Bank of England was on the point of 
suspending cash payments. Since then Mr. Robinson has kept the 
nickname of “Prosperity’-Robinson”, given him by Cobbett. As 
the English are fond of historical precedents, it was inevitable that 
Prosperity-Robinson should have successors. The Queen’s Speech 
which inaugurated the last extraordinary session of Parliament,° 
congratulated the country on the exceptional state of prosperity in 
agriculture, manufacture and trade. And yet, by then even the 
semblance of prosperity which might possibly have deceived Mr. 
Robinson had vanished. Ministerial congratulations seem to be part 
of the ceremonial with which, in England, disasters affecting the 
world market are suitably announced. Even stranger than the 
language of Ministers is the silence of the press at this moment. 
Does it believe it will be able to burke” the trade crisis, in the same 
way as in the literary coteries of Paris unpopular books are 
burked—by a conspiracy of silence? However, price lists talk, the 
lists of bankruptcies in the Gazette talk, and the letters of “business 
friends” talk. Soon, too, the newspapers will talk. Last week, very 

“ F.Robinson’s speech in the House of Commons on February 28, 1825. 

“ Queen Victoria’s speech in Parliament on December 12, 1854. The Times, 
No. 21923, December 13, 1854.— Ed. 

significant suspensions of payment occurred in the City, among 
the most important being that of Messrs Lonergan & Co., in the 
Spanish and West Indian trade; that of Messrs Rogers, Lowrey, 
trading with Manchester and the surrounding factory, districts; 
that of Messrs Kotherington & Co., in the American trade; and 
finally that of the Auberten brothers, an old and respected firm. 
The liabilities of these various firms are said to amount to an 
average of £100,000 to £150,000. For the current week, new 
suspensions of payment by at least seven important City firms are 
expected. 

From a business letter of January 20, from Birmingham, we 
have extracted the following details concerning the situation of 
industry in South Staffordshire: 

“With the exception of firms in iron manufacture which are producing war 
materials for the Government, only very few have any orders at all, and those in 
hand are at extremely reduced prices. At present, £8 10s. will buy a ton of 
bar-iron, which in mid-summer was quoted at £12, but even at these reduced 
prices it is scarcely possible to make a sale, so that production has to be restricted. 
There are few of the important interests of the United States of North America 
which have suffered more on account of the trade crisis there than heavy industry. 
Nearly all the great iron works in the United States in which enormous sums have 
been invested, have turned their workers out into the street without any chance of 
‘early re-engagement. America’s consumption of tron must therefore be regarded as 
almost completely suspended, and we may expect no further orders from there. 

“Last Saturday many workers from the tin factories” (of Birmingham) “were 
sacked and many more will follow tonight” (January 20). “Ore and brass workers 
are no better off, since most of the big works here are on short time. 

“Orders in hand for fashion articles are very scarce, and commercial travellers 
seeking spring orders in this branch are sending home very discouraging reports. 

“The situation in the money market continues to have a disrupting effect on 
all branches of trade. The banks are raising their rate of interest in a most 
detrimental way, and at this moment only one business is doing well—that of the 
money-lender. Clients are flocking to the small pawnbrokers’ shops, and discount 
houses are reaping a rich harvest.” 

Karl Marx 

London, January 9. The telegram from Vienna* concerning the 
acceptance of the Four Points*'* on the part of Russia produced, 
on the one hand, a rise in Consols on the London Stock 
Exchange—for one moment [they were] 2'/, per cent above 
Saturday’s” rate; on the other hand, a veritable panic in the tallow, 
oil and seed markets, where an early conclusion of peace would be 
the signal for large-scale bankruptcies. Today the excitement 
among City men has subsided, and, with a fair amount of 
agreement, they regard negotiations on the Four Points as a 
second edition of negotiations on the “Vienna Note”.*’? According 
to the thoroughly ministerial Morning Chronicle, it was premature to 
speak of an actual acceptance by Russia of the guarantees 
demanded.° Russia had merely declared herself ready to negotiate 
on their basis, as interpreted jointly by the three powers. The 
Times -believes that a victory of Western policy may legitimately be 
celebrated and declares on this occasion: 

“We cannot too strongly repudiate the assumption, [...] that this war is to bring 
about what is called a revision of the map of Europe, by means of conquests or 
revolutions in which this country, at least, has no sort of interest.” ° 

“The Allies,” says The Morning Post, “have done enough to be able to withdraw 
from the theatre of war with honour, if their terms are accepted.” © 

“The telegram from Vienna of January 7, 1855. The Times, No. 21945, 
January 8, 1855.— Ed. 
January 6, 1855.— Ed. 
“ The Morning Chronicle, No. 27469, January 9, 1855, leader.— Ed. 
The Times, No. 21946, January 9, 1855, leader.— Ed. 
© The Morning Post, No. 25279, January 9, 1855, leader.— Ed. 

According to The Daily News, by resuming negotiations Russia 
intends to strengthen Prussia’s belief in her moderation, to sow 
discord between the German powers, and to loosen the relation- 
ship between the Western powers and Austria. The only important 
aspect of the Four Points was the extra clause, according to which 
the Dardanelles Agreement of July 13, 1841] was to be revised “in 
the sense of a limitation of Russian naval power in the Black Sea”. 
It was rumoured in the City that the Ministry was prepared to 
drop this extra clause. Lastly, The Morning Advertiser declares that 
the final Russian step had been agreed upon with Austria so as to 
give the latter an opportunity of getting rid of her obligations 
towards the Western powers. According to a newly arrived 
dispatch it has been stipulated that the negotiations must not 
interrupt war operations. 

II 

London, January 12. The unconditional acceptance of the “Four 
Points”—that is to say of the “Four” Points in the sense of the 
“three” powers—by Russia has turned out to be a hoax* of The 
Morning Post and The Times. We were the more inclined to believe 
in the hoax, as we know from Pozzo di Borgo’s secret dispatches *"° 
(which, however, had become known following the Warsaw 
insurrection) that this master of diplomacy has laid down the 
principle that “in all cases of conflict Russia should induce the 
great European powers to force her own conditions upon her’. 

And in the “Four” Points we can see only “four” Russian 
points. If Russia, for the time being, does not accept them, we shall 
find the explanation once more with master Pozzo di Borgo. 
Russia, he declares, ought to make such apparent concessions to 
the West only from a victorious army camp.*'’ This would be 
necessary to maintain the “prestige” on which her power was 
based. And so far, Russia, it is true, has got an “army camp”, 
but she has not yet managed to gain the “victory”. If Silistria had 
fallen, the “Four Points” would have been established long ago. 
According to The Times and The. Morning Post,” the “Four Points” 
in the sense of the “three powers” had been adopted as basis for 
negotiations in order to start from them as a minimum. Now it 

January 12, 1855, leader.— Ed. 

turns out that Prince Gorchakov sees them as a problematical 
maximum from which to bargain down, or which are in effect 
intended only to furnish a pretext for another “Vienna Confer- 
ence”. Today, The Morning Post, in a self-important, diplomatically 
oracular leader,’ confides that the provisional meetings of dip- 
lomats at Vienna are merely a preliminary to the actual conference 
which would not assemble until February 1 and which would not 
fail to surprise the world to a greater or lesser degree. 

Yesterday the following announcement by the Admiraity was 
displayed at Lloyd’s”: 

“With reference to the last paragraph of my letter of the 8th November” 
(1854), “stating that the French and English Admirals in the Black Sea have 
received orders from their respective Governments io extend the blockade of the 
mouths of the Danube to ali the ports in the Black Sea, and in the Sea of Azoff, 
which still remain in the possession of the enemy, I am commanded by mv ‘Lords 
Commissioners of the Admiralty to acquaint you, in order that the same may be 
made known to the mercantile community, that the Governments of England and 
France have further decided that the blockade in question shali take place on and 
after the Ist of February” (1855) “and that due notice will be given in the London 
Gazette of the blockade of the particular ports so soon as the same shal! nave been 
effected. 

“Tam ete. 
“W. A. B. Hamiltor’”* 

Here, then, it is openly admitted that up to now the allied fleets 
have blockaded only their own allies on the Danube estuary, but 
neither Russian ports in the Black Sea nor in the Sea of Azov. 
Nevertheless the Ministry has repeatedly declared in Parliament— 
in April, August and October—that it had issued the “‘strictest 
orders” for the blockade of Russian ports and coasts. As iate as 
December 21, Lord Granville, in the name of the Ministry, 
announced to the House of Lords that 

“Odessa was blockaded by five warships which have been constantly cruising in 

front of [Odessa]; reports have been constantly sent to [Her Majesty's} govern- 
ment...” 

In a letter addressed to a daily paper, a well-known English 
pamphleteer sums up the consequences of the blockade measures 
taken, or rather not taken, by the Coalition, as follows: 

“ The Times, No. 21948, January 11, 1855.— Ed. 

4G. Granville’s speech in the House of Lords on December 21, 1854. The 
Times, No. 21934, December 22, 1854.— Ed. 

“(1) The English Government supplies England’s enemy with money from 
England so that enemy may continue the war against her. (2) The Danube is 
blockaded in order to impoverish the Principalities and to cut off our own corn 
supplies. (3) Odessa, Taganrog, Kerch, etc., remain unmolested so that they may 
supply reinforcements, ammunition and provisions to the Russian troops in the 
Crimea. (4) The mock blockade is ruining our merchants while it enriches Greek, 
Russian and Austrian merchants.” 

The Times too takes the occasion of Mr. Hamilton’s announce- 
ment to launch violent attacks on the Ministry’s “blockade 
diplomacy”.* It is characteristic of the Thunderer of Printing 
House Square that his thunderclaps have always been flung post 
festum. From March 26, 1854 till today The Times has defended 
“blockade diplomacy”. Today when its rumblings obstruct no 
ministerial measures but may well gain it popularity, it suddenly 
turns into a clairvoyant. 

The naval minister, or, as he is called here, the First Lord of the 
Admiralty, Sir James Graham, is sufficiently well known on the 
Continent on account of that magnificent achievement in black 
cabinet which led the Bandiera brothers to the scaffold.** It may 
be a less well known fact that in 1844, when Tsar Nicholas landed 
on the English coast, Sir James Graham did not dare to shake the 
proferred Imperial hand, but only to kiss it. (See The Portfolio, 
second series, 1844.°) 

II] 

London, January 15. As for the meaning of the Four Points: 

“Nothing can be done in the way of further diplomacy till the first day of 
February.” (Till February 5 or 6, says the Vienna correspondent of The Times) 
“Meantime, the Czar has a clear month to move his forces where he will.[...] A 
month’s time gained by acceptance of the four points may be lengthened to two 
months, by disputing the subsequent terms step by step, as the Envoy of Russia will 
probably be instructed to do; while it is far from improbable that strenuous efforts 
will be made to attract Austria into contentment with terms short of those which 
would be acceptable to England and France. To divide the three Powers would be 
the obvious thing to aim at....”“ 

Thus The Morning Post. 
More important than the bandying of words in the English press 

* The Times, No. 21949, January 12, 1855, leader.— Ed. 
“ The Morning Post, No. 25284, January 15, 1855, leader.— Ed. 

about Russia’s secret intentions is its open confession (with the 
exception, of course, of the ministerial organs) that the basis of 
negotiations, the Four Points, are not worth negotiating for. 

“The World, when the struggle commenced, was artfully made to believe,” 
wrote The Sunday Times, “that the object to be secured by it was the breaking up of 
the Russian empire, or, at least, the extorting from her of material guarantees for 
the preservation of the peace of Europe. Towards accomplishing either of these 
ends nothing has been done, and nothing will be done should peace be concluded 
upon the basis of what are called the ‘Four Points’. If there be any triumph in the 
matter, it will be a triumph achieved by Russia.” * 

“The Ministry of all the Incapacities,” says The Leader, “cannot get beyond the 
Four Points: it may go down to posterity as the Ministry of the Four Points. No 
more of this dull comedy of war without a purpose.” [...] Peace on the basis of the 
Four Points could only be concluded because “they fear that in the tumult of war, 
the peoples may become too important [...] and possibly to prevent Englishmen 
from regaining those rights which Cromwell won for them. [...] That might be the 
motive for patching up the conspiracy with Russia, and for restoring to her the 
permission of renewing her encroachments upon Europe under the cover of a flag 
of truce.” 

The Examiner which incontestably commands the first position 
among middle-class weeklies carries a detailed account of the 
“basis” of peace negotiations, the essential points of which are 
summarised. below. 

“if such concessions as even the most rigid construction of the Four Points can 
alone be held to involve, are to be considered equivalents for all the treasure that 
has been lavished and all the blood*that has been shed by Englishmen in this 
contest,—then the Emperor of Russia” in starting this war has shown that he is a 
great statesman.... “She [Russia] is not even to be mulcted of the large sum she 
annually receives from us for not observing the treaty of Vienna. The mouth of the 
Danube, which, according to the correspondence recently published, she had 
laboured most earnestly to close against English commerce, is to be left in her 
hands. This latter point [...] would simply amount practically to the status quo, for 
Russia never denied that the provisions relating to the navigation of rivers which 
are contained in the treaty were applicable to the Danube.” The abrogation of the 
treaties of Kainardji and Adrianople “~ is of little singificance, for it is that these 
treaties do not justify the claims Russia has made upon Turkey; “and when we 
consider that Russia is to be one of the five powers which are to exercise a joint 
protectorate over the Principalities and the Christian subjects of the Sultan ... we 
believe that the benefits expected from the change will prove altogether illusory, 
whilst it will be attended with the enormous disadvantage of giving a legal character 
to the machinations of Russia for the dismemberment of Turkey. [...] We shall of 
course be reminded that the Four Points include stipulations for a revision of the 
Treaty of 1841 in the interest of the balance of power. The expression is vague 
and mysterious enough, and we are not at all satisfied, from recent indications, that 

* The Sunday Times, No. 1684, January 14, 1855.— Ed. 
January 13, 1855.— Ed. 

the change contemplated under it may not be far more menacing to the 
independence of our ally” (Turkey) “than to the predominance of our enemy.... 
We should have rejected as utterly incredible any such possibility as we assume to 
be now under discussion at Vienna, but for that speech of Lord John’s, in answer 
to Mr. Cobden, to the effect that the Government had no wish to deprive Russia of 
any of her territories.” * 

The last point is indeed crucial since, for instance, even the 
freedom of navigation on the Danube could only be secured if 
Russia were to lose the “territory” in the Danube estuaries which 
she seized, partly through the Treaty of Adrianople, in violation 
of the Treaty of London of 1827, and partly through a ukase of 
February 1836, in violation of the Treaty of Adrianople.™ The 
point which The Examiner fails to emphasise refers to the Treaty 
of the Dardanelles of 1841. This treaty differs from the treaty 
concluded by Lord Palmerston in 1840**! only insofar as France 
joined as a contracting party. The contents are identical. Only a 
few months ago, Lord Palmerston declared the Treaty of 1840, 
and thus also the Treaty of the Dardanelles of 1841, to be a 
victory by Britain over Russia, and himself the originator of that 
treaty. Why, then, should the cancellation of a treaty which was a 
victory by Britain over Russia, suddenly become a defeat of Russia 
by Britain? Or, if at the time, Britain had been deceived by her 
own Ministers, believing herself to be acting against Russia, while, 
in fact, she was acting for her, why not now? Disraeli, during the 
From the above extracts it can be seen that he has found an écho 
in the liberal press. Surprise at Russia’s having accepted the Four 
Points, with or without reservations, is beginning to give way to 
surprise at Britain’s having suggested them.