CHAPTER IV.

PRIVATE CORRESPONDENCE.-1854.

London, Feb. 6: Count Colloredo's View of the Situation-Protocol of Jan. 13-Baron Brunnow not yet Recalled.-London, Feb. 13: The latest BlueBooks-Hopes and Fears.-London, Feb. 28: Dissolution of the Northern Alliance-Russia and the Party of Revolution.-London, March 30: Memorandum of April 3 (15)--Menschikoff's Demands-Russian Intrigues in London and Paris-Orloff's Mission-Lord Clarendon's Despatch of March 23, 1853.-London, May 22: The Bamberg Conference-Walewski's Criticism-His Remarks on the Origin of the Anglo-French Alliance— London, June 23: Austro-Prussian Answer to the Bamberg Note-Position of the minor States of Germany.-London, July 16: Interview with Prince Albert-His Remarks on the Bamberg Note and the Situation in General.Boulogne, Sept. 4: Arrival of the Emperor Napoleon-Visits of the Kings of Belgium and Portugal.-Boulogne, Sept. 9: The Meeting at BoulognePrince Albert's Arrival and Departure.--Paris, Nov. 17: Memorandum on the Prospects and Programme of the Second Empire.

London: Feb. 6, 1854.

My despatch of yesterday will have completed the account of the thorough change that has occurred here in the state of affairs. I inclose the Times,' which is now more than ever the organ of the Government. Friday's article preached downright revolution, and summed up the situation by saying in effect, If you gentlemen at Berlin and Vienna do not go with us, we will burn your houses over your head.' My Austrian colleague smiled when I spoke to him with anger about these threats. We must forget,' said Count Colloredo, ⚫ our continental ideas when dealing with the English press, and avoid a battle of windmills with them; for the "Times" is

no "Moniteur"-the Government will any day disavow it, and have only a very limited influence on its management. In point of fact the article contained the whole truth. Russia, it declared, had unfortunately set the example, and having failed to arouse the enthusiasm of the nation in favour of the lamely conducted war, had compelled the poor Wallachians to fight against their legitimate Sovereign. That was more than preaching revolution; that was setting an active example of the worst kind. If the Conservative Power par excellence behaved thus, what were the Liberals to do? Now, if ever, was the time to rub one's eyes and examine the lying pretexts of Russian policy by the light. The bugbear of Democracy was played out, and would not any longer deceive a soul. Anyone who read the Blue-book impartially could only wonder at the patience of the Western Powers and the incredible blindness of the Russian Cabinet. Spoiled by good fortune, that Cabinet had begun to believe that they had only to express a wish in order to obtain it. But the German Powers were fit for something better than to form a screen behind which Russia might hide her schemes of ambition. The duperie of an alliance in which one was to have the winnings and the other two the stripes, could not last any longer; it was bad enough that it had been clung to as long as it had. Orloff must have a totally different pouvoir discrétionnaire, otherwise his mission was unintelligible.'

I presume it is known that Orloff left St. Petersburg on the 18th, and Fonton, who arrived at Vienna before him, on the 21st; the protocol of the 13th, however, reached the Russian capital, as we know, on the 20th. Orloff had, therefore, left St. Petersburg before, but Fonton after, the propositions were announced. According to this, Orloff must have found news at Vienna which was nearly three days in advance of what he

PROTOCOL OF JANUARY 13.

93

had heard on his departure. Had Orloff, then, had simply to deliver the counter-propositions, a messenger would have sufficed. That Russia will and must give way, the representatives here of Austria and Prussia are most firmly convinced. Thus much also seems certain, that Russia would never obtain again a more favourable basis for an understanding than that offered by the protocol of the 13th. If she delayed too long, the four Powers, or possibly France and England alone, would categorically demand its acceptance, and at the same time name a peremptory period, at the expiration of which they would treat the refusal to evacuate at once the Danubian Principalities as a casus belli, and proceed to a formal declaration of war. An hour ago no news had yet arrived of Russia's final rejection of the propositions. The telegraphic despatches in the newspapers are consequently premature. Baron Brunnow has not yet left, and seems inclined to wait and see how matters are shaping themselves at Vienna.' He may leave, indeed, at any moment, but at all events it would be easier for him here than abroad to resume the threads of negotiation. ...

London Feb. 13, 1854.

Comfort you will not find from me, and, I am afraid, nowhere. I might fall back on general phrases, but I think it better to refer you to the two Blue-books which I am sending to-day to Dresden. They contain 788 documents (despatches, notes, and protocols) respecting the rights and privileges of the Latin and Greek Churches in Turkey, and were completed last Friday by the addition of six papers, exchanged between Russia and England, in reference to the suspension of diplomatic relations. Pray get this collection

The recall of the Russian Minister was announced on the same evening by Lord John Russell in the House of Commons, and Brunnow reluctantly left London the following morning (Feb. 7).

from the Ministry, and read these 794 documents calmly and impartially, and, if possible, pencil in hand. We will then discuss them further. Should this tax your patience too severely, I promise you an extract, which Professor Hermann, who is now here collecting materials for his history of Russia, is about to prepare.

I have ascertained thus much from a perusal of these papers, that the Emperor of Austria has acted in the spirit of Schwarzenberg in declining to play the part demanded from him and the whole of Germany. It is not simply a question of choosing between Cossack and Red. The question is, whether Austria, with an army which only a short time ago covered itself with glory at Novara and Temesvár, could allow herself to be treated like Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt, or, if you will, like Belgium. The question is: Who broke the peace in 1853? Who preached Revolution? Who forced the subjects of a lawful ruler to take up arms against him? Is the Sultan a less lawful ruler than the Czar? Does the Wallachian owe obedience to the Turk or to Holy Russia? Does the Pope Athanasius deserve hanging less than Mazzini? I am anxious like you, though, perhaps, for different reasons. I am anxious because the man whom we looked on as the protector of order in Europe is only Conservative as long as it pleases him. As to the end of all this, it seems clear enough. Death will have a rich harvest, and this revolutionary nonsense will enjoy its triumph until modern barbarians rule over that petty planet which we name after one of Jupiter's mistresses. When the god of thunder himself, out of love to Europa, changed himself into a bull, why should we wonder that so many mortals are now following his example? Something is rotten in the state of Denmark,' and the hour is yet distant when the tragedy will end in peace. I

DISSOLUTION OF THE NORTHERN ALLIANCE. 95

still hope for peace. You are mistaken if you think that war is wished for here. Not even the officers desire it who are off on the 18th and 19th for Constantinople.

London: Feb. 28, 1854.

An article entitled The Conservative Press on the Eastern Question' has explained to me for the first time the misunderstandings to which my letter to you, and other private communications, may have given rise. As to the unseemliness of launching public charges against a crowned head, of course I entirely agree with the writer. The facts on which these charges are founded cannot, certainly, be gainsaid; though it would be unfair, or at least premature, to make the Russian Emperor personally responsible for them. But the most grievous indictment against the Czar is this, that he, the protector hitherto of order in Europe, is now, without either knowing or wishing it, and as if impelled by some terrible fatality, playing into the hands of the Revolutionary party. Austria and Prussia have parted, after a hard struggle, from their old and trusted ally, because their interests imperatively required them to do so. Both have yielded simply to necessity, the Czar being now no longer master of the situation, and having forced matters in the East to a crisis. That there was a point at which, if Russia pursued to extremities her policy of conquest, directed against the continuance of Turkey, Austria would break off from her, was no secret. Indeed, if I recollect rightly, I once pointed out this very eventuality in a despatch from St. Petersburg, superfluous as it was to do so, inasmuch as nobody could doubt that on the day when a Russian army should threaten to cross the Danube for conquest, that change of tone towards the North' was bound to take place at Vienna of which Prince Schwarzenberg had spoken immediately after the Hungarian campaign.