The Press.
London, England, 1857-04-25 00:00:00

THE NEUFCHATEL QUESTION.

IT appears that the British and French
Plenipotentiaries are still floundering in the
mire of the Neufchatel quarrel. The cause of
their difficulties is obvious to all Europe—
namely, the impracticable character of the
King of PRUSSIA ; but it suits the organs of
Lord PALMF.RSTON'S policy to attribute them to
Lord DERBY'S Administration. Hence we
have an article in the Globe assuring the public
that the present claims of Prussia upon Neuf.
chatel arc entirely attributable to the Protocol
signed by Lord MALMESBURY in 1852.

We need hardly remind our readers that the
Congress of Vienna in 1815 restored the Prin-
cipality of Neufchatel to the King of PRUSSIA,
whilst at the same time it annexed it as a
Canton to Switzerland. In 1848 Neufchatel
repudiated all connection with Prussia ; and
until now has de facto, though not de jure, been
practically independent. In 1832 the King
continued to urge his claims upon Lord
DERBY'S Government, as ho had done on that
of his predecessors, declaring that his only
object was " to save his honour,"' and that he
would place it in the hands of the great
Powers to do so by an acknowledgment that
de jure he was Prince of Neufchatel.
The Protocol, signed in London in
May, recorded merely the historical fact
that such was the case by the Treaty
of Vienna ; but, by agreeing that nego-
tiations should be opened with Switzerland
upon the subject whenever the signing
Powers thought it opportune, and that, until
then, the King would not have recourse to any
other measures to make good his claim, it
admitted and even affirmed the necessity of

But Lord DERBY'S Government resigned
before the end of the year, and its suc-
cessors left the Protocol to moulder in Down-
ing-street, until, in 1855, the anticipated
collision between the two parties at Neuf-
chatel occurred. Yet had they every opportu-
nity of carrying out its objects. The recogni-
tion by the great European Powers of NAPOLEON
BONAPARTE'S empire was the signal triumph of
the defacto over the de jure principle. The) were
bound by the same Treaties of 1814 and 1815
to oppose by force of arms a Bonaparte
dynasty ; but they bowed to facts, and all
accepted it without delay. Could any of these
Sovereigns—and, above all, NAPOLEON lII.
have then refused to have carried out the
Neufchatel protocol had Lord CLARENDON,
Lord MALMESBURY'S successor, insisted upon
their doing so? Could Prussia have dared to
urge her claim upon a worthless and imaginary
title in Switzerland, when she had hastened
to recognise the practical results of 1848 in
France ? And could the King have involved the
agreements of 1815 for himself, whilst he re-
nounced them for the Bourbons?

Lord CLARENDON lost his opportunity, or per-
haps torgot Switzerland altogether. The favour-
able moment passed by—NAPOLEON is now
safely seated on his throne; and, if ouraccounts
from Paris be true, he is not so much disposed
to defer to English feelings on the subject of
Switzerland, as when in 1852 he accepted the
mediation of Lord MALMESBURY to settle his
dispute with the Swiss, and to stay the inva-
sion he threatened that brave and free people.