The Press. — London, England, 1856-11-08 00:00:00

1068 THE WEEK. THE probability of a coolness! between the Governments of England and France has this week engaged the public mind in both countries. An article in the Constitutionnel of the sth, supposed to reflect the sentiments of the French Cabinet gave rise to some appre hension that the points, of difference between the two Courts were serious and growing ; but that apprehension has been partially dis pelled by a calm and sagicious paragraph in the Moniteur. It is toted in another part of our present issue. Statesmanlike, and in most respects assuring, as this paragraph is, our political and com mercial classes still note that it admits a difference of opinion on one point, described as little material, and that it notices also a disagree ment, or at least an unsettled opinion, as to the manner in which that immaterial point shall be decided, whether by previous agreement or by another European Congress. The article in the Moniteur must be accepted as an unequivocal proof of the desire of his Majesty the Emperor to maintain in full force the English alliance. The presence of M. DE PERSIGNY at Compeigne, as the guest of his Majesty, may probably have some connection with the appearance of this concilia tory article in the official journal. The admitted fact that some difference of opinion between the two Cabinets dues exist, naturally excites speculation as to the nature and extent of this difference. It is now no secret, and it does not date from yesterday. Since the Treaty of Paris, more than six months back, there aopears to have been an impression on the mind of the British Government that the statesmen of Russia were eager to seize occasion for evading the terms of the Treaty; and the instant that the difficulty arose respecting the landing of a party of unarmed Russians on Serpents' I-le to attend to the management of, the lighthouse, the Ad ministration of Lord PALMERSTON viewed the act as a confirmation of its suspicions, and, without concert with the other parties to the Treaty of Paris, ordered a squadron to re-enter the Black Sea. The French Government. never approved this act, believing it to be uncalled for. The British Government persisted, and there is now reason to suppose encouraged Austria to continue her occupation of the Danu bi•,n Principalities under pretence that Russia had evaded compliance with the terms of the Treaty. The inevitable effect of these acts was, 4) complicate the whole question, and, in fact, to render the terms of the Treaty nugatory. The mischief having been done, the Government of France became more anxious than ever that a European Congress should lie summoned to settle disputed points. This proposal is resisted by England, and probably also by Austria and Turkey, on the ground that the terms of the Treaty do not, according to their reading, require explanation, and that it would be useless or derogatory to call another Congress while the decisions of the last remain unfulfilled. In his speeches at Manchester and Salfbrd, Lord PALMERSTON was careful to state that the peace with Russia would be lasting if she fulfilled the Treaty she had signed with faithfulness. His Lordship's expressions significantly hinted that there was room for doubt on that head ; and from many such phrases as that the " duration of peace must depend on the honour and fidelity with which its conditions " are observed," he left it to be inferred that he considered peace at t'ie present time to be by no means certain, and that he regarded Russia as anxious to escape from the obligations of a Treaty most solemnly contracted. The real point thus raised—and that between not merely England and Russia, but also between England and France—is, whether one party to a treaty has a just right to insist that its own construction of the terms of such treaty is not only the just construction, but the sole admissible censtruction. If all parties were equally obstinate, it does not appear how it would be possible to carry any treaty into effect; and by refusing to submit disputed points to a European Congress, it does appear that a Government refuses to adopt the only means of arriving at a pacific solution which circumstances admit of Should Russia persist in her view of the Treaty, and should France consider that view not unreasonable, the present unsettled state of things may be indefinitely protracted, Austria meanwhile holding the Principalities, a British squadron cruising in the Black Sea, and Russia retaining possession of the slip of territory in dispute. The proposal of France that another Conference should be held, would seem to present a satisfactory mode of solving the difficulty. It is only when diplomatists meet together with something like friendly feeling—with confidence in each other's honour—and with a deter mination to allow no minor points to interfere with a settlement of disputed questions, that a satisfactory solution can be arrived at. Whatever may be said of the desire of Russia to evade the terms of the Treaty, it is plainly her interest that they should he fairly carried out, as she must view with misgiving the continued occupation of the incipahties by Austrian troops, and the continued presence of British ships of war in the Black Sea. It was to be hoped that the English press would have had the wis • dom to drop its attacks on the Imperial Government of France, seeing the natural irritation that those attacks had occasioned. We at e sorry to fi pit this is not the case. A Ministerial organ last Sunday contained a most slanderous attack on the Foreign Minister of France. The attack was prominently copied into the Times of Monday : FRENCH DIPLOMATISTS ♦ND THE CUR.-Our contemporary the Observer contains the following significant piecl of intelligence, dated St. Petersburg, Nov. 1:—" Count SATURDAY, 'Milewski, the French Foreign Minister, a Pole, is to have the Polish estates of his family restored to him again for his services to the Czar in the late war." The statement itself might have been true. Count WALEWSKI might have had Polish estates restored to him by the Czar as a com• pliment to the French Government, or as an acknowledgment that from his position it was unlikely he could exercise an adverse in fluence to the Russian Administration. The slander was in the asser tion, which could in no case have been more than an inference, that the estates were restored to him " for his services to the Czar in the " late war." This was directly to accuse the Foreign Minister of France of treason; and had such an accusation been made against any British subjects, the journals promulgating it would undoubtedly have been made to pay severely for their calumny. The whole story it now appears from an announcement in the Constitutionnel is totally desti tute of truth. Count WALEvistu had no Polish estates, and therefore could have none restored to him. The paragraph is from beginning to ead a most malicious fabrication. While on this subject we may notice a misapprehension common in this country as to the degree of inspection exercised by the Govern ment of France over the press of that country. It seems to be assumed that whatever issues from the French press is sanctioned by the Government, or at least is not objected to by it. The censorship in Franco has no such object. It is of the mildest form. It interferes with the liberty of the press only so far as to prevent the publication of matters dangerous to the existence of order. No one can glance through the French journals without perceiving that they contain many things which must be highly offensive to the Government ; but such publicati ms are not interfered with except when they are posi• tively of a dangerous and seditious character. It is the same with publications of all kinds. In the recent works of MM. DE MONTALEM BERT and DE ToconEvILLE are contained many passages injurious to the whole system of the existing Government of France ; but they were not on that account suppressed. When, therefore, certain of the French journals are indicated as manifesting hostile sentiments to this country, and it is thence inferred that such sentiments are sanc tioned by the Government, the great mistake is committed of sup posing that the Government pretends to control free discussion, when it in fact only pretends to repress sedition. Our contemporary the Morning Post, which has been zealous in reproving that license of the press against which the French official organ has protested, has this week signalised itself by an abusive tirade against Russia, which has called forth the justly indignant con demnation from some of the ablest and most independent journals of the Continent. The reply of Le Nord is extremely spirited and dignified. The assertions of the Post are contradicted in detail, and it is stated that the action of the Russian Government has been in every parti cular scrupulously honourable and conciliatory. The reproof of the Independance Beige is entitled to more respect from its independent position : The Morning Post has just published against Russia and its Sovereign an article of the most violent character, and one in the writing of which the English journal has forgotten its proper dignity and all decency. The Times itself is now distanced in the passion of its language. In the article in question, the Russian Government is repre sented as acting with craft, with fraud, and corruption. As it suits its immediate pur poses, and fclioiving the interests of the moment, it is charged with supporting all political parties and sects, the Royalists, Republicans, Absolutists, Legitimists, So cialists, &c. With respect to the terms of the Treaty of Paris, it is accused of tbe most dishonourable and dishonest conduct, and devoid of every scruple in the way of its ambitious views. But all those offensive observations are nothing in comparison to the way in which the King of Naples is spoken of by the Morning Post. In a series of articles which have lately appeared in that journal, his Neapolitan Majesty is called an odious and imbecile monster, who is a dishonour to royalty. After such specimens of newspaper literature, we think that the Morning Post, while defending the rights of the press against the late remarks of the Moniteur, has very little right to lecture his con freres upon the propriety of keeping within the limits of fair and impartial criticism. If it be true, as is generally assumed, that these attacks in the Post are inspired by Lord PALMERSTON, a more certain, yet more irrespon sible, anode of estranging the two Governments and of keeping up an uneasy feeling throughout Europe could not be devised. SIR BENJAMIN HALL does not seem to hit it very well with his model Board. In the first place, the constitution of the Board itself, as &scribed in our columns some three weeks ago, is nct exactly the work of a conjuror. It combines all the evils of both local and cen tralised administration without the benefits of either. Marylebone has adverse interests to Shoreditch, and Islington to Southwark. When Whitechapel meets Westminster, then comes the tug of war; and, indeed, the whole time of the Board seems to be taken up in choosing plans for improvements, which, if left to particular dis tricts, would have been accomplished in half the time when the want was once really felt. In addition to this there is as much uncertainty about the relative powers of the Board and the Chief Commissioner as there was about the limits of the prerogative in the days of CHARLES I. At present, certainly, Sir BENJAMIN has it all his own way, and rules the roost after the fashion of a Tudor more than of a Stuart. Things are just now very pleasant for him. If a capital improvement is carried out, the Chief Commissioner will get all the credit of it. Who but Sir BENJAMIN will be the talk of the town? But in cases of failure, the unfortunate delegates will have to bear all the blame. " Heads I win, tails you loose," is the enviable prospect before Sir BENJAMIN in all his co-operations with the Board. He knows his power, clad is not slow to let others know it. His tone at the Whitehall meeting of Wednealay last was that of a monarch. King BENJAMIN there had an interview with his faithful Commons ; or, in vulgar words, the Chief-Conunissioner of the Board of Works THE PRESS.