The Sun.
London, England, 1864-06-17 00:00:00

be made by the War Department for tedttting the force at
your disposal to its normal strength, and removing the re-
mainder from the coast. It may be hoped that the display
of force made during the last few months will not have been
without its due effect, both on the Ashantee enemy and on
the friendly native chiefs, and that the -_.essation of the
rains may not bring with it the necessity for a reneV.-al of
warlike preparations on your part to defend yourself or the
friendly native population from wanton attack. Under the
now altered circumstances of the case I do not propose to
renew the conditional permission given by the Duke of
Newcastle to Governor Pine to strike a blow within the ter-
ritory of Ashantee. To take immediate steps for securing,
as far as possib!e, the health and comfort of the officers and
men, is now the first and paramount duty for the Govern-
ment. You will keep me fully informed of everything which
tends to show the disposition of the Ashantees, and as no
military operations on my part will now be possible for se-
veral months, I content myself, at present, with instructing
you to use your best efforts to avert the renewal of the war,
to induce the native chiefs to rely on their own power and
energy to a much greater extent than appears to have been
their habit of late, and to avoid the necessity of again bring-
ing to the settlement a number of the Queen's troops too
great to be properly accommodated on the coast, with the
certainty that all who go inland will be exposed to the
most serious risk of health and life.—l have, &c.,

(Signed) " EDWARD CARDWELL."
A return gives the number of officers and men who have
landed at Cape Coast Castle since Jan., 1563, namely, 51
officers and 1,402 men. As a rule, tin officers are Europeans,
and the non-commissioned officers and men negroes. There
are no particulars given as to the number of casualties.

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS,

TAlLS.—Sixty-three years ago the greatest pub-
licist of the age—a writer whose portrait was ad-
mitted among those of Sovereigns and Generalissimos
to a place in the Gallery at Windsor—expressed his
views of a artain political combination in the fol-
lowing emphatic words This transient union of
the three States was a single phenomenon, pro-
duced by a conjunction of extraordinary circum-
stances, assisted by the genius of one of the
greatest men of any age, and beyond the sphere of
all the calculations of ordinary politics. Such
phenomena must always defeat them; they exceed
the science and expose its insufficiency. A similar
combination will perhaps not occur in the course of
many centuries; it could never last; its permanence
would be in contradiction to the nature of things,
and to the necessary order of all political relations."
When we explain that the writer of these words
was no other than Ni. Gentz himself, and that the
" combination " which he describes as so unnatural
and monstrous was simply an alliance between
Austria, Russia, and Prussia, we shall have said
enough to make anyone shrink from the perils of
political dogmatism. The "phenomenon" which
presented itself to this master mind in the shape of
an ephemeral abortion passed into an argument so
strong and durable as to constitute the chief feature
of the political system of Europe from that time to
this. Instead of thinking that the three Northern
Powers could never be at one with each other, we
have learnt to think that any schism between them
can express only a casual and transitory difference,
and that in any European disturbance they must
ultimately be found allied. The truth is that Gentz
with all his sagacity failed to perceive the extra-
ordinary importance of the event which he had
been contemplating. That event was the parti-
tion of Poland, and even in the eager and im-
passioned controversies which that deed to this day
provokes, its singular effect on the political affinities
of States is usually overlooked, Not the least re-
sult of this deed is the complicity established among
the perpetrators. All other diversities have been
overpowered and outlasted by a common conscious-
ness in this great matter, and at the present moment
the three Sovereigns of the States which divided the
spoil are once more meeting for the purpose, it is
said, of exchanging opinions and guarantees. We
should be sorry to think that this meeting would
produce any prejudicial effect upon the debates of
the Conference, but we are compelled to draw from
this and other recent proceedings conclusions by no
means favourable to that peculiar des elopment of
civilisation which is expected to bring peace in its
train. it is still believed in some quarters that no-
thing but a little energetic concert among statesmen
is required to establish arbitration instead of war as
the last appeal of nations; in fact, it is but a few
weeks ago that we published an elaborate scheme
for the construction of this Supreme Court. But if
the application of these principles were practicable
we ought to receive assurance from any meeting of
crowned heads. A Court of International Arbitra-
tion must necessarily be composed of national repre-
sentatives ; that is to say, in most instances, of the
representatives of Sovereigns. These delegates must
express the opinions of those who sent them ; but
how, we ask, is it possible to anticipate that these
opinions would be based exclusively and invariably
on considerations of equity and right ? It seems to
have been totally forgotten in these propositions
that no wisdom or device could assimilate a Court
of Arbitration to a Court of Justice. In a Court of
Justice the judges are always presumed to be abso-
lutely indiffirent '0 everything except the law. They
look at the case from the outside; they have no
imaginable interest involved in it, and they pro-
nounce sen tenet) with entire independence and with-
out regard to results. But in a Court of Arbitration
the judges, whoever they may be, must necessarily be
sitting in causes of their own. Not a case could
come before the Court but would be the case of one
of its own members, and even those who might be un
concerned in the particular trial would be concerned
in conciliating the favour of their colleagues for future
occasions. To make a Court of Arbitration like a Court
of Justice, the judges should come from the moon.
Look at the Conference now sitting in London.
The majority of its members are actually either
plaintiffs or defendants in the very suits before the
Court, and it is literally by way of distinction that
some of the judges are called " neutral." But even
these neutral judges have each their bias. The
Emperor of Russia takes a journey to concert ar-
rangements with the Emperor of Austria and the
King of Prussia. France is ostentatious in her
assertions that the interests of England in the cause
are not her interests. This is equivalent to an ad-
mission that what is at stake is something different
from right, and that what is to be done is something
different from justice, or otherwise every judge
would be interested in precisely the same manner
and degree. Nor are we pretending to any mo-
nopoly of impartiality on our own part. We have
sympathies as well as others, and though we think
we may claim some credit for disinterestedness, we
should certainly not get that claim allowed. But
how in the world could any Court thus constituted
be described or regarded as a genuine Court of
impartial arbitration? And how, again, could a
Court for the purposes of international arbitration
be constituted substantially otherwise ? European
disputes mean disputes between European States,
and the quarrel, if it is not to be fought out, must
be arranged by the mediation of such States as are
not actually parties to it. Probably, the basis of
the arbitration theory is that there would always
be neutral States in strength sufficient to arbitrate
fairly between contending States; but the present
aspect of Europe carries an immediate disproof of
the assumption. Where is the really neutral State
in this Danish question ? Say that Russia has no
strong or direct interest in the result, yet we now
see that when the case of Denmark comes on for
trial the case of Poland affects the proceedings,
and that three out of the five great powers are
hound together by a community of responsibilities
contracted nearly a century ago. One European
" question " is inextricably linked with another,
and the judges of Denmark's rights and Ger-
many's claims are distracted by thoughts of
Hungary, Italy, and Poland. It is evidently con-
sidered not impossible that the Polish question may,
govern the Danish. These are not agreeable reflec-
tions, but it is of no avail to deceive ourselves by
looking at things in a false light, A Court of Inter-
national Arbitration, if by such definition is meant
a tribunal bound to administer evenhanded justice
to contending nations without fear or favour, is a
practical impossibility, because it would be impos-
sible to find judges who were not either directly or
i
indirectly parties to the suit. But still there s
something between this perfect alternative and the
resource of war. A Conference or Convention of
States cannot be a Court of Arbitration in any strict

sense of the words. It is a meeting for the discovery
of a possible compromise by ascertaining what the
induced
from and their friends can severally be
from one motive or another tosurrenbdy Suspicions,
erOraCCept
The proceedings may be affected
expectations, and alarms as much as
.by argument,
evidence, or demonstration ; but still it
atsydifrsocrausstihone
and not fighting. It is only too evident, however,
that
of o.Many C
international
re
n s law yet a longcases
of
vir
quarrel, and
perfection
those the most common and most dangerous, it does
not so much as profess to reach. In others it cannot
be administered without such inevitable and uni-
versal bias as precludes the idea of genuine arbitra-
tion. But such as it is, it is something to employ
instead of war ships and cannon, and we must
endeavour to make it do their work.
DAILY NEWS.—" I am not a member of the Con-
ference, and all I know is, that it is adjourned till
Saturday," was the answer of Lord Palmerston to
a question put to him in the House of Commons last
e vcn This reply ought to quell the dissatisfac-
tion of any whose over-inquisitiveness has made
them impatient of tho scantiness of public informa-
tion concerning the Conference. Lord Palmerston
knows no more about the matter than if he were a
clergyman in the country, instead of being the soul
of the Government. He knew last night what

every newspaper reader knew yesterddy morniog,
and uo more. The wonder is that he knew so