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

• .1, . .
.:`
dhlj,:rl--19rb6.7y
tyr
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, thatUwe eigaaiit. avniam".
noticing the question. _•
.0.
For example, the Premler,:and his pineW
boasted of the reception witteLitiittaliiioMW-
-, •,.•:____)' 2-7,( t
)

1:••