The Sun.
London, England, 1862-10-24 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, OCTOBER, 24, 1862.

TEE FRENCH PRESS AND THE CIRCU-
LAR OF DROUYN DE LHUYS.

The Constitutionnel expresses itself in these
terms :

" The document is short and clear. On the
Roman question it refers to the Emperor's letter
as the true expression of the principles of the
Government. There is consequently no change
in the Imperial policy. The Emperor's Govern-
ment will continue the work of conciliation which it
persist in its efforts
has
withoutundertaken
discouragement in
The clearness of this language lenders comment un-
necessary, and completely justifies the opinions we
have expressed."
The following is from the Palm :
" The letter addressed by the Emperor to M.
Thouvenel, and M. Drouyn de Lhuys' circular,
which has just been published, fully justify, our
readers will admit, our latest observations upon the
exaggerated interpretations of certain journals with
reference to the nomination of the new Minister of
Foreign Affairs. So long as no Imperial declara-
tion, we said, shall have shown that the French
policy traced out by the letter of May 20 has been
modified, we shall only look upon the retirement of
M. Thouvenel as an incident which justifies neither
the discouragement of the friends of Italy, nor the
hopes of her adversaries. The situation is there-
fore now clearly established. Two ineffectual at-
tempts made at Rome have produced neither dis-
couragement' nor impatience.' The Emperor re-
sumes the work which he has undertaken for the
satisfaction of the rights of Italy and the interests
of the Papacy. He now takes it up again with the
hope of completing it, and until the day in which
that hope shall be entirely abandoned he will pur-
sue its realisation, without giving way to any in-
citement, and without deviating from his line of
conduct. Italy should less than any one regret this
delay in the accomplishment of her political desti-
nies. The time which elapses strengthens the con-
quests realised during the last three years by the
principle of unity. It is in vain that the reactionists
endeavour to shake the edifice of which the founda-
tion was laid by France at Solferino. On the day
in which the crowning of that edifice shall be ob-
tained, nothing will be able to menace it; neither
vanquished ambitions nor interests, which are now
spared."
The language of the Pays runs thus :

"This diplomatic docament confines itself to re-
calling the general principles by which the Imperial
policy has so far been inspired in the Roman ques-
tion, and of which the realisation is about to be
pursued as before without discouragement as with-
out impatience.' The object of that line of conduct
is the conciliation of the two opposite interests
which are contending in Italy. M. Drouyn de
Lhuys devoted himself to that task in the very same
terms in which it was set forth by the Emperor's
letter of the 20th of May last. As to the means to
be followed to arrive at so desirable an arrangement
the circular of the Minister of Foreign Affairs says
nothing. We understand that reserve, for we know
well that as a General must not make public his
plan of campaign, in the same manner a diplomatist
must not reveal the secret of his negotiations."

The 2emps makes the following comment, which
is not altogether so sanguine of success as those of
some of its contemporaries :
" There is little to be said of this circular. It
justifies the policy which the _France has sustained
from its commencement to the dismissal of M. Thou-
venel, and to.which the Constitutionnel appears to
have rallied since the accession of M. Drouyn de
Lhuys. The France, as we have already observed,
has now advanced another step, and at present, as
if the Empire was not based upon universal suffrage,
it purely and simply disregards the right of the
Romans,' and openly proclaims that Rome is lost
to Italian unity. One more great fact is again
shown by the Ministerial circular; it is the im-
mense importance of the Roman question, which
evidently takes the lead of and effaces all others, at
least at the present moment, in the occupations of
the Government. The new Minister commences by
declaring that he desires to enlighten the public
mind as to the direction which he shall follow, and
after that general declaration he only discourses on
Rome as if there was no other foreign question on
the order of the day. As to the fresh attempts at
conciliation, in which the Government is about to
take the initiative, we expect absolutely nothing.
The Holy See has laid down the question, and made
engagements in such manner as to be able to give
way in nothing. France must abandon it to itself,
or be with it against Italy. All half measures are
illusory."
The France is much more laboured in its obser-
vations, and endeavours to prove, above all, that
its own views find an echo in the Minister's cir-
cular :

" The policy of the Emperor's Government is now
defined with a clearness which leaves no room for
the false interpretations and misconceptions which
for a moment misled public opinion. M.,Drouyn de
Lhuys, in the important circular just published,
declares that this policy is embodied in the thought
which inspired the letter of the 20th of May. This
memorable letter thus remains the only programme
of the pclicy which France will endeavour to realise
in Italy, and, according to the Minister's own words,
it expresses the Emperor's views, with an autho-
rity which would only be weakened by comment.'
It was, in fact, by adding to the words of the Chief
of the State a commentary which they did not jus-
tify, and by passing over the Imperial programme
to dwell more particularly on the despatches of M.
Thouvenel and M. de Lavalette, that the sense of
this Sovereign manifestation came to be misunder-
stood by public opinion. When we said, with
strict logical inference from the premises, that in
the letter of 20th May, and in that alone, the true
expression of our policy was to be found, what
opposition,neon encountered w
m t
the wrath, h
what contradictions we
u
revolutionary journals and
efhr
from
wr
those which had imprudently joined them for the
moment ! The circular of M. de Drouyn de Lhuys
now clearly shows who had truth and reason on
their side. Whence came our conviction ? Whence
the error of our opponents ? Their error arose
from the fact that they regarded the check expe-
rienced by our diplomatic agents in the negotia-
tions with the Holy See as an abandonment of the
traditional policy of France, though again affirmed
with so much precision and impartiality in the Em-
peror's letter. M. Thouvenel and M. de Lavalette
had failed in their efforts to induce the Roman
Court to accept the views of the Imperial policy.
Was that a reason why this policy should be sud-
denly maified,:deserting at the same time the work
of universal interest of which it is at Rome the repre-
sentative and persevering defender ? Of course it was
not. Principles so sacred, so fundamental as those of
which France is the organ and protector in Italydo not
give way because a diplomatic check, due, perhaps,
to accidental causes, and perhaps retrievable to-
morrow, may have temporarily delayed their
triumph."
The Monde does not speak out very plainly, but
it avails itself of the opportunity to affirm that no
sympathy whatever is felt in France for the
Italian cause, except among writers for the public
press :

" Except among journalists we have found in no i
class of the French population any sympathy with
the Italian revolution. If an inquiry were made as
to the feelings of all Frenchmen, they would be
found unanimous (excepting the journalists, of
course) in declaring that the Italians cost us a great
deal, and bring in but little. Even in the most dis-
tant provinces it is seen that the Italians pay us in
wretched coin, and people do not restrain them-
selves from saying so."
The language of the Union presents a marked
contrast to that of the extracts just read, as it as-
serts that it is quite impossible for any ordinary in-
tellect to extract a clear and definite meaning from
M. Drouyn de Lhuys' words. It says :
" Frankly, in the present conjuncture, if the idea
is not concealed, it remains, to our eyes at least,
singularly veiled. On closely examining the words
and phrases it is felt that the idea is stealing away,
and to obtain from them any clearly defined sense,
more perspicacity, assuredly, than we can display
is necessary. The Minister refers to the Imperial
letter of the 20th of May; be it 30. On that subject
our opinion is well known,
a nature to and
y it. the
circumstances
modify are not of What is also no