Mr.

"of confirming the influence of Russia on the internal and external repose of the rest of Europe." How might those enlightened English Liberals, who reprobated all the deeds of the Holy Alliance, have been expected to act in such a great European crisis? The secret correspondence indicates with what eagerness the debates in the English Parliament were read in Russia, and what pleasure it gave to Count Nesselrode and the Emperor Nicholas to find that their policy did not want defenders, as Count Lieven assures them, amongst the most distinguished members of both Houses. Brougham's vehement declamation against the barbarism of Turkey; Sir James Mackintosh's observations on "the danger of any guarantee in favour of the Ottoman Territory"; and Lord Palmerston's warning against an "AustroTurkish policy," were all immediately reported to St. Petersburg, and received with the greatest delight by the highest personages in the Russian Government. The Emperor of Russia, in return, favoured his ambassadors with imperial criticisms on the different specimens of English rhetoric which had been sent for his perusal. After studying the first of Lord Palmerston's speeches on the affairs of Portugal, in which he said that it was altogether out of the question

that England should go to war in defence of the Sultan, and that an Austrian Alliance for maintaining the independence of Turkey was not advisable, the Emperor Nicholas informed Count Lieven of the gratification which the study of that speech had given him, and declared that Lord Palmerston must be regarded as one of the greatest of English orators. The criticism was certainly just. But how far the sentiments it expressed, coinciding as these particular passages did exactly with the Emperor's own opinions, assisted his appreciation of the speech, and whether or not His Imperial Majesty's admiration of Lord Palmerston's eloquence has continued up to the present time, there are not yet means of ascertaining. Should the archives of St. Petersburg, however, one day suffer the same fate as those of Warsaw, and their contents be disclosed to the English public, there can be no doubt that they will afford an edifying example of political toleration. In Austria, a Liberal is sure to be ranked as an enemy. But as long as they are subservient to his ambitious intents, enthusiasts of every description, politicians of the most opposite principles, Sir James Mackintosh and Count Ficquelmont, M. Chateaubriand and Mr. Cobden, have the impartial and cosmo

K 2

politan applause of the orthodox Defender of the Greek Faith.

The future historian will some day have to record what an important part the Peace Society has played on the breaking out of the great war for the security of Europe. The Emperor of Russia trusted to the orations of the fanatical votaries of peace in 1853, as he formerly trusted to the speeches of the Opposition when he dictated the Treaty of Adrianople. Experience, the surest of guides in political affairs, had taught him that in 1829 the Duke of Wellington and Lord Aberdeen, with their eyes open to the consequences of the unfortunate treaty, had been obliged to acquiesce in it; and that even Sir Robert Gordon, the brother of the English Foreign Secretary, had advised the Sultan to accept those hard conditions of peace rather than continue a ruinous war. How could the Northern Autocrat expect that the result would have been different in the present day? Were not some of the members of the Peace Society as influential politicians as the noble lords and honourable gentlemen who scouted the idea of defending Turkey twenty-six years ago? Had they not spoken the sense of their countrymen in the great national struggle against monopoly so that even the great and powerful government

of Sir Robert Peel had been unable to offer a successful resistance to the popular agitators ? Were not the blessings of peace as obvious to the multitude as those of cheap bread? Could it be anticipated that Mr. Cobden, so omnipotent in his advocacy of one cause, would be so powerless in another? Were not the principal governments of the Continent as friendly to Russia in 1853 as in 1829? In 1829 there was the able Minister of Austria prepared to offer a determined opposition to the attack on Turkey, and the Austrian Empire was then powerful and independent; but in 1853, with Austria almost a dependency of Russia, and her politicians bitterly hostile to England, the greatest obstacle to the subjugation of the Sultan was removed. And what was there to fear from the rest of Europe? What chance was there of any successful combination against Russia? Prussia was at this time, as in 1829, the ally and friend of the Czar. A Napoleon had just ascended the throne of France; the just apprehensions of England had been excited; the English newspapers were almost unanimously reprobating in the most unmeasured terms the new ruler of France, and even Cabinet Ministers on the hustings had given free utterance to the same. sentiments. What probability was there that

an alliance between France and England, which for twenty years had prevented the hollow truce between Russia and Turkey from being ostensibly disturbed, could again be cemented under a Napoleon? The English ministers would doubtless protest against another invasion of Turkey; but did not Lord Aberdeen himself vigorously protest against the Treaty of Adrianople without war having followed?

This parallel between the state of Europe in 1829, and that at the moment when Prince Menschikoff went on his celebrated mission to Constantinople, which heralded the present war, may show that there was nothing so wild and imprudent in the recent attempt on the Ottoman Empire as has been represented. Appearances were decidedly in favour of Russia. The moment was well chosen. None who fairly consider the circumstances of the two epochs of 1829 and 1853, will venture to affirm that there was much probability of a great European war in defence of Turkey, after so many years of peace, and so much passive submission to Russian aggression. This was not the act of a mad emperor; there was much method in such madness.

The Peace Society must be blamed for the present war, as the Whigs, and not Lord Aber