The Press.
London, England, 1858-12-25 00:00:00

THE PRESS, DECEMBER 25, 1858.

Emperor. In the Saturday Review I read an
article in which they term the Emperor a liar, a
perjurer, and a blood-stained murderer. That
Is pretty good in its way, being friends with the
French. When people use such violent language
they make a great mistake, and, instead of being
wise, it is very foolish, because I believe our
alliance with France is of the greatest impor-
tance."

In this belief Mr. STURT is certainly not alone.
Indeed, we suspect it would be difficult to pick out
in all England two sane individuals entertaining
an opposite opinion. The journals alluded to by
the Hon. Member for Dorchester would certainly
go with the crowd. Both are eloquent advocates
of the alliance in question. Both concur in
lamenting, as its sole defect, its possible fragility.
And yet, incredible as it may seem, it is this very
fragility which both, with their utmost efforts,
strive to augment !
An inconsistency of this kind becomes matter
of serious moment when those guilty of it take
rank among the leading organs of the press.
That the Times and the Saturday Review are un-
conscious of the risks incurred by their gross and
reiterated attacks upon the Emperor of the
FRENCH cannot for a moment be supposed. The
elevation of LOUIS NAPOLEON to the Imperial
throne is one of the most remarkable revolutions
of modern days. Now, the journals alluded to
would, we are convinced, feel greatly insulted by
the supposition that their views on the Philosophy
of History are not more profound than those
which suggested to M. SCRIBE his clever farce
Un verre Beau. What inextinguishable laughter
would flash in "small pica" across the length
and breadth of the land, were we to assert that
the oracular Sibyls who lie perdu in the caverns
of Printing-house-square and Southampton-
street, W.C., can see no further into a revolution
than Peter Bell did into a primrose ! At the
same time, unless they acknowledge the fit of the
cap, they must concede that between the exist-
ence of the Empire and the actual tendencies
and sympathies of France a logical and genetic
connection exists which, while it explains and
justifies our position, vitiates and condemns
theirs. Into the " philosophy," so to speak, of
this connection we do not feel called upon to
enter. The elements of durability may or may
not be wanting to it. But when we recollect
that the groundwork of France's political educa-
tion—her past history—is a history in which
everything tends as distinctively to pure, as our
own past does to mixed monarchy, we cannot
help thinking that the chances in favour of the
Empire lie much deeper beneath the surface than
its assailants would care to avow. Be this, how-
ever, as it may, we beg to submit that the
journalist makes a flagrant and a fatal mistake
when he confounds his office with that of the
historian—when he builds up speculations upon
the abstract and the possible, instead of prac-
tically dealing with the actual and the necessary.
But the Saturday Review is too sharp not to be
conscious of its own inconsequence, and too clever
not to find a specious apology for it. In a recent
number, it acquits itself of all responsibility by
ingeniously arguing that, in strictness, the French
alliance does not exist at all ! Treaties and
signatures may satisfy the vulgar ; but, observes
our clever and cantankerous contemporary,
" there is a radical and fundamental contrariety
" between the two people—a chasm which no
" palaver can bridge over. What is wanting to
" the French alliance is the idem relic atque idem
" nolle, which is the only sound foundation of
" mutual co-operation. In the sense which its
" admirers attribute to it, we ',do not hesitate to
" say that the French alliance at this moment
" does not exist."

Now, the above strikes us as a fair specimen of
that useful and amusing trick commonly. called
" throwing dust into people's eyes." That the
idem velle atque idem nolle is " the only sound
foundation " of a sincere alliance no one will
dispute ' • but that it is so in the sense lent it by the
Saturday Review we doubt if any reasoning indi-
vidual will allow. According to our contempo-
rary, the idem velle atque idem ,wlle ought to imply
the identity, not merely of international interests,
but of national interests also. In order to secure
" mutual co-operation," it does not suffice that
our ally shall recognize a conformity of views
between his foreign policy and our own. He must
assimilate himself to us in his home policy also.