The Press. — London, England, 1856-11-15 00:00:00

• .1 , . . .:` dhlj , :rl--19rb6.7y t yr A 4. No. 183.—V0r..1V. LONDON, SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1856. 7,;A:IPAUE,;:.I7,PLNECNE,.E. talc Vress. the action of the two Governments would be unanimous, or that Russia must not derive immense advantage from the antagonism so plainly revealed. tion of the menacing language held towards that power by our Government. How is this antagonism of sentiment to end ? The question raised is, whether Russia, shall be treated as a friend or a foe ? We have never disguised our opinion than when the Treaty was signed, it was our policy to meet Russia in that spirit which the Emperor of the FRENCH has so happily expressed. Peace would have been made in vain, unless we were prepared to treat with Russia on fair and equal terms, and to credit her with a desire to honourably fulfil the conditions of the Treaty. On those conditions it was inevitable that some difference of opinion would arise. In the affairs of nations, as in the affairs of indi viduals, there can be no settlement of contro verted points without a spirit of conciliation and confidence. Neither on one side nor the other is a person justified in insisting on his own interpretation, without reference to parties who are equally interested with himself on matters in dispute. On the first occasion of controversy with Russia, the Government of Lord PALMERSTON, without consort with the other parties to the Treaty of Paris, and even without consultation with the Government of France, ordered a squadron into the Black Sea, and thus entirely disconcerted that policy of conciliation which it was the desire of the Administration of the Emperor of the FRENCH to carry out. To some minds this course may appear spirited. In reality it was merely bungling. It at once weakened that alliance which had humbled Russia in war, and which opposed an insuperable barrier to her future aggrandise ment. Through this blunder Russia has in a great measure regained the ground she had lost. She is reclothed with European influence. Lord PALMERSTON'S restless insult has had no other effect than to attract the eyes of the world to the more dignified attitude of France, and to produce a conviction, that on the con troverted points Russia must be in the right from the superior dignity of her demeanour. What passes for spirit in Lord PALMERSTON is merely the uncivil bluster which cannot understand the advantage of courtesy and con fidence in diplomatic intercourse. There is one language suitable for war ; another for peace. Of all kinds of foreign policy the worst is that which rests in the degrading mean be tween friendship and hostility—Suspicion, and which repels alliance, and forfeits all title to respect, by an assumption of arrogance and rancour. In the speeches of Lord PALMERSTON at Salford. and Manchester, and Liverpool, he declared his belief that Russia had been. and was. endeavouring to avoid honest compliance with the engagements she had contracted at the Treaty of Paris. He intimated that for this reason peace was insecure,, and he in sisted that England must be ready, at all hazards, to enforce the honourable fulfilment of those engagements. In all that he spoke on this subject he insinuated distrust of Russia. Every word was an insult. He proclaimed that there was good reason to suppose that the Russian diplomatists were acting with bad faith, and that their perfidy could only be checked by an attitude of hostility and a dis play of armed power The Ministerial journals were more violent. They gave free utterance to what the Premier only insinuated, and they endeavoured to persuade the country that the perfidy of Russia rendered it probable that we should again be compelled to have recourse to arms. In contrast to these representations, we have the emphatic address of the Emperor of the FRENCH, on receiving the Russian Ambassador on Wednesday last. If it were true that the two Governments were cordially united on the tone to be adopted towards Russia, we should expect to find in this speech some words of serious warning, or of menace. We should expect that Lord PALMERSTON'S declaration that the duration of peace would depend on the f►ithfulness with which the conditions of the Treaty were observed, would have found some echo in the words of our Ally. His whole speech is, on the cont►ary, the most opposite in tone that can well be conceived to the manifestoes of the bead of our Government. The Emperor declares that it has been his constant endeavour, since peace was signed, to ameliorate whatever was harsh or difficult in its stipulations by a generous and conciliatory policy ; that it was by his instructions that M. DE Moasv, his Ambassador at St. Petersburg, cultivated amicable relations with the Emperor ALEXANDER, and won his esteem ; that to these sentiments the Emperor of RUSSIA has nobly responded ; and that, forgetting hostile senti ments with the termination of the war, he now thinks only of the advantages of a sincere peace by means of friendly relations. This address is eminently distinguished by the em phasis and graceful point which so peculiarly mark his Majesty's compositions. We have then fairly before us two distinct lines of policy as regards Russia—a policy of suspicion and hostility, and a policy of frank ness and conciliation. It may be a question which policy it would be most advisable to pursue. There may be a party in this country ready to contend that Lord PALMERSTON is in the right and that the Emperor of the FRENCH is in the wrong; but no .man of common un derstanding can pretend that there is anything like agreement between the ideas which within little more than a week have been out thus prominently forward by the heads of the French and. english Government. Every reflection on'Russian perfidy made by Lord PALMERSTON has been in fact a reflection on French credulity or bad faith. Every compli ment paid to Russian sincerity by the Em peror of the FRENCH is a pointed condemna- PLATFORM POLITICS. A PHILOSOPHICAL politician of the De Tocque vile school would find an excellent subject for study in " the British Platform of modern " times." The manner in which organised applause, and the clamour which proceeds from hired malcontents, have come to be sub stituted for public opinion, is most remarkable, and deserves far more attention than has been bestowed upon it. It would be impossible for the journalist to do critical justice to such a question ; but the current month his offered such singular illustrations G5l . the wing et-. the British platform, that U we eigaaiit . avniam ". noticing the question. _• .0. For example, the Premler,:and his pineW boasted of the reception witteLitiittaliiioMW -, •,.•:____)' 2 -7 ,( t ) 1:•• LONDON, SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1856. WE are told, and we hope it is true, that the French Alliance is safe ; that the Government of this country and the Government of France are agreed on all essential points ; that though some difference of opinion may prevail, it is not greater than must be expected to arise from the generally harmonious action of in dependent Administrations; and that under no circumstances is there any probability that the policy of the two countries will be dissevered. - - These assurances of the Ministerial press are in part superfluous. The mind of the people of this country is made up. We have adopted the principle of the French alliance, not through any pressing necessity, not as a temporary expedient, but from a deliberate conviction that it affords the surest guarantee for the independence of nations and the general tranquillity of the world. We may conceive circumstances to occur which would shatter this alliance, but we can perceive no sign of such circumstances arising at the present time. In one of those decisive conjunctures which severely test the good faith of nations, the two countries have held together, and the worth and potency of their alliance has been established beyond all cavil by the results obtained. Principles of policy are not swiftly grafted in our public mind, but when once fairly established there, they acquire the force of those institutional sentiments which no transitory changes can displace. We do not think it possible for any Government in England, whatever may be its wish, to cast off the French alliance. The in telligence of the country would not allow the breach to be made. We are well persuaded that it would sooner displace an Administration which misrepresented its sentiments, than► part, except on the gravest and most urgent grounds, with a principle of policy which every motive of justice and prudence urges it to preserve. Yet though the akin ..cc may be in no real danger. it is plain that the opinions of the two Governments are adverse on a very important question of policy, They are not agreed on the course to be adopted towards Russia. On the one side magnanimous sentiments are professed towards the Court of St. Petersburg; on the other, hostile suspicions. The French Government desires that all causes of irrita tion should cease ; the English Government thinks that the time has not yet come when cordial relations with Russia can be resumed. Be it observed, we have not now to deal with the declamation of anonymous writers. The heads of the Governments of England and France have spoken in the most unequivocal manner. The Prime Minister of this country and the Emperor of the FRENCH have, within a few days of each other. declared their senti ments on the policy which should he pursued towards Russia. The Anglo-French Alliance may be in no danger though those sentiments should be in direct opposition. But in that case it would be ridiculous to suppose that