à Londres même. Le mouvement eut lieu de part des Chartistes, c'est à dire des ultra libéraux parmi la classe ouvrière. Subitement partout les préparatifs cessèrent sans arriver à aucun résultat excepté dans quelques parties du pays de Galles. La conspiration fut rendue vaine par l'influence d'un très petit nombre de messieurs qui s'étaient familiarisés avec la nature de l'action Russe en Grèce et en Orient. Ils étaient convaincus que non seulement les troubles de l'Occident étaient favorables à la Russie, mais qu'ils étaient fomentés par elle, et ils soupçonnoient même que dans ce cas-ci il fallait reconnaître un exemple de son activité.

"Pleins d'inquiétude ces individus mirent de côté toute répugnance personnelle et visitèrent les principaux chefs Chartistes. Ils leur parlèrent franchement du caractère et de l'étendue de l'ambition Russe, et réussirent à intéresser leur patriotisme et leur intelligence. Le chef des Chartistes de Londres fut le premier à partager leurs sentiments, quelques autres du Nord suivirent son exemple, et c'est ainsi que toute la conspiration se trouvait paralysée. En un mot plusieurs d'entre eux remirent à ces messieurs quelques portions de leur correspondance secrète, leur chiffre, et sa clef.

"L'origine Russe de ce mouvement était ainsi bien claire. Le chiffre étoit le même que celui dont s'étaient servis les agens Russes en Grèce, et celui qui avait fourni le chiffre avait été quelques années auparavant un agent Russe en Grèce, en Égypte, et en Pologne.

"Ces messieurs n'ont pas cessé de suivre le sujet afin de le connaître plus à fond. Le sous-signé présente quelques uns des résultats de leurs études, de leurs voyages, de leurs dépenses, et de leurs travaux.

“Il affirme que la révolution de la Hongrie fut fomentée par la Russie avec l'intention d'affaiblir l'Autriche afin de la mettre ensuite sous le joug d'obligations imaginaires, et avec d'autres vues qu'il serait impossible de détailler ici.

"On tient aussi les preuves que les agitations politiques de l'Italie sous le règne de Grégoire XVI. furent fomentées par les instruments de la Russie, et qu'à une date antérieure elle avait les Carbonari à sa dispo sition, au moins depuis 1813-14.

"L'alliance de l'Angleterre et la France même après 1830 a été rendue -rapport à son but principal qui était d'arrêter la Russie-presque nulle. L'attention de ces nations fut attirée à des objets erronément choisis, la Russie ayant preparé d'avance des tentations suffisantes. En Europe le principal de ces champs d'action fut la Péninsule. La France et l'Angleterre tantôt séparément, tantôt ensemble, furent engagées dans l'Intervention et en chaque cas-comme prévu-le résultat fut la dissension mutuelle.

"Or une telle chose n'était possible que par un grand développement de certains élémens de discorde dans l'Espagne et le Portugal. Ce s'est effectué par un principal événement, c'est à dire, par le soulèvement militaire et libéral de l'Ile de Léon en 1819. Il y a des preuves suffisan.

tes que ce commencement des troubles de l'Espagne fut entièrement le fruit des intrigues et des dépenses de la Russie.*

"L'Occident étant ainsi occupé de lui-même et ses gouvernements affairés et affaiblis, tout ce qui concernait les buts de l'ambition Russe fut laissé libre pour elle, et, pire encore, fut abandonné entre ses mains par ceux qui étaient en connivence avec elle.

"Le sous-signé pourrait bien faire mention d'une autre série de résultats, mais il n'en parlera maintenant. Il se contente de diriger l'attention........ Il n'entrera dans des explications sur le rôle de plusieurs Anglais qui, généralement supposés d'être stimulés par le zèle libéral, n'ont été en vérité que les instruments du Cabinet Russe.

"Il n'est donc pas de péril plus grand pour un gouvernement que celui de croire la Russie une puissance qui craint l'esprit révolutionnaire dans les autres états. Dans son action extérieure le contraire la caractérise aussi decidément que l'autocratie le fait dans son système intérieur. L'emphase de ses déclarations dans un sens opposé est simplement un voile jusqu'à présent impénétrable du moins pour l'Angleterre. Par ce double caractère son profit est en même temps grand et facile. En secondant les factions, en organisant les conspirations elle occupe les peuples, et en même temps rend les cours ses clientes par ses professions amicales et conservatives.

"On prend facilement en bonne foi ces professions, puis qu'on la voit elle même despotique. Mais elle a bien calculé son jeu, elle connait bien sa race, différant tant des autres peuples de l'Europe en langage, en religion, en degrés de culture, et en espoir de domination. Les serfs ne sont pas susceptibles des influences qu'elle emploie pour agiter l'Europe, et c'est dans son calcul qu'ils resteront ainsi jusqu'à ce que l'Occident sera devenu, non un exemple qui attire, mais une leçon qui détourne, c'est à dire, corrompu, épuisé, et vassal.

'Le sous signé ne prétend pas donner des conseils. Il vient simplement déposer ses experiences et ses convictions aux pieds de........

"Il n'est poussé que par la connaissance qu'il a de cette conspiration dirigée contre la vie des nations et par la certitude qu'il a que tant que le pouvoir Russe ne sera rompu il n'y aura ni paix pour les sujets ni sécurité pour les trônes.

*After creating the revolt, all her efforts were bent towards the French intervention,-which she carried despite the opposition of Louis XVIII. What he feared and what Russia desired was almost accomplished,—the reopening of war between France and England. When the Duc d'Angoulême entered Spain, the liberals in both houses offered to stand by the ministers in a war with France on the Spanish question. The temptation was great, and nearly yielded to."

44

"Sept. 8, 1854.

'SIR,—On my return from a lengthened tour on the continent, I have addressed myself to a hasty review of some portions of the Catholic literature produced during my absence. You will not, I trust, think that I flatter, when I say that your Review was turned to by me with eager

ness.

"It is seldom indeed that I find any occasion for hesitating to follow the path chosen by you. On one matter only do I venture to do so,and that is a subject to which I happen to have devoted very many years, and in connection with which I have made many sacrifices.

"A conservative in politics, and, by God's good grace, a Catholic in religion, and personally acquainted with many eminent persons in various states, I trust you will listen to me with more patience than it is in general very easy to accord to the representations of a stranger. I put forward, however, my acquaintance (I might almost say more than acquaintance) with Dr. Newman as a claim to consideration more likely to tell with you than the intercourse which has been allowed to me with many statesmen,-from the late Sir Robert Peel and others in England, to Cardinal Antonelli and various diplomatists, either at this moment or lately in important office in England or on the continent. Finally, as an English University man, you will perhaps allow to my few words that tentative acceptance which you might possibly refuse to an unknown person speaking on a class of subjects beyond the, as yet, familiar matter of politics.

"I allude to your estimate of the character of Russia.

"You, like the majority of my countrymen, think her conservative, an element among the nations of obedience,―of permanence,-of respect between man and man,--of faith and worship, and all that is warred against by the revolution.

"I know her to have laboured in the opposite sense.

"Schisms, heresies, false and wild speculation civil and religious, dis contents, conspiracies, outbreaks, revolutions,—these have been the familiar weapons for her use and profit, for at least twenty years previous to the great French revolution down to the present hour. I repeat with confidence that the corruption of Europe has, more than any other department of activity, been pursued without cessation, and with scientific judgment, by the power to which we were complacently condescending to impart what we thought a boon,— -our polish, our civiliza

tion.'

"By sufficient research you will find that she it was who ripened the seeds (certainly of themselves sufficiently vigorous) of 'the' French revolution. I am myself personally cognizant of some portion of her share in various subsequent convulsions. But it is vain to enter into such a subject by any ordinary correspondence.

"Permit me to send you a miserably meagre outline of some only of its branches. It is a paper very slightly modified and curtailed from

one which I drew up for Cardinal Antonelli some time ago. From him I received in return the most positive confirmation of its accuracy so far as concerns Russia's share in several of the great conspiracies against religion and order in Italy during the last twenty years....

"This, sir, is a very serious and weighty subject. It lies at the very root of modern events, and is the key of history for many years. If I am wrong, how greatly and how perversely so! If right, how fatal to Europe and to more than Europe the error that interior despotism and a high tone of absolutism are a guaranty that the great Russian power is a defence to us of order and of traditions? If we think so, while she is in reality industrious and inventive on the other side,-while she is in reality labouring for the dissolution and mutual collision of states,-she is mistress of the game, and can scarcely fail to work out of it her objects of national ambition.

"There is, sir, only one element tending to mould events which Russia has not taken thoroughly and justly into calculation. She has not believed in, and therefore not appreciated as an element, the Church of God. She has not believed in the supernatural working for the chair of Peter,-using insignificant instruments,-turning the moments of the church's apparent defeat into the occasions of her success.

"But for this, were it only the human material of opinions, passions, forms of government, conspiracies, armies, the press, and all the rest. Russia would be right in all her hopes, her immense designs would be very far from insanity. And it is not that Catholics any more than others see and understand her; it is simply that God's good providence must in the ecclesiastical field secure her defeat, though whether before or after the further downfall of nations, I in no degree pretend to calculate. "I will not enter into the question of the justice or injustice of her present attack on Turkey. Most sure I am that it is unjust, but it must rest undiscussed. Nor will I touch on the question whether the Turk is at present the power against whom the church and the state of Christendom have to be specially on the alert, or whether his past and present sins directly concern us in the same way, and to the same degree, with those of Russia, whether it is the Turk or the Russian who is braced to deeply laid designs against the independence of states,-against the security of Rome,-against the order and the strength which would oppose vast aspirations for dominion; for I know that the most perfect exposition of these topics would give but a barren result in the way of convincing a mind which had honestly set itself to the contest with revolution, and at the same time fancied that Russia had hitherto been a fellow-labourer in the same cause. The erroneous sympathy would practically prevail over all logic and all facts.

"Allow me to suggest one consideration. The line upon which you have entered is in opposition to what I know of the thoughts of many of the best Catholics and wisest men. It is in opposition to that of most worth naming in Rome, I may almost venture to say of the Holy Father

himself. It is in opposition to that of the majority of the French bish. ops and a vast number of the clergy.-I should suppose of far the greater number. It is thoroughly in opposition to that of the bishops of Austria and Prussia. But you are in the same line with the ultra Protestant and ultra Russian organ of Berlin, the Kreuz-zeitung-with that of the precisely similar organ in Holland,-with that of the extreme revolutionists of Italy, France and Spain. That all these should take the line which they take is no surprise to me. That the truc leader of the Greek schism should stir heaven and earth against 'the Latins' is natural,-that he should try to weaken and corrupt that Europe which otherwise would be tenfold too strong and too clear-sighted and upright for him, all this is natural; it is natural, too, that the other enemies of the Latins' and of the existing order of states should be his instruments and allies.

“Russia would not enter Constantinople to-morrow if the Turk wished him. She knows that Europe would not bear it. Europe therefore must be brought to the condition where she will bear it, that is, after more wars, more revolutions, more exhaustion, more dreams, and more despair. This is the simple key to Russian policy.

"It would oblige me if you would read the enclosed paper. It, or a nearly similar document, has been received with interest by more than one personage of some experience in European affairs. I would almost ask you to print it in your Review as a fair tribute to opposite views, and as a paper which, as a fact, has been respectfully acknowledged in high quarters. Any passages in further illustration of this side of the question from my letter are also very much at your service.....

“I remain, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant."

We think our Scottish correspondent has not quite understood our position with regard to Russia. We are not, and never have been, the partisan of the autocrat, and whoever will do us the honor to read the article on "Christianity and Heathenism" published in our Review for January, 1852, * will perceive that resistance to the further advance of Russia was a leading feature of the policy we ventured to recommend to the Catholic statesmen of Europe. That article, we may remark by the way, was written and in type before Louis Napoleon's coup d'état of December, 1851, when the more immediate danger seemed to be from the temporary triumph of demagogy, of which France was the focus. The policy we recommended had for its object to resist, on the one hand, the advance of the demagogic despotism, or centralized democracy,-what in this country we call radicalism,-and on the other, centralized royalism, or

*Brownson's Works, Vol. X., p. 357.