The Sun.
London, England, 1865-09-11 00:00:00

BENJAMIN, by a brief resume of the negotiations,
brings the blame to the door of the Federals. Every
motive of humanity and of interest urged upon the
Confederates the encouragement of an exchange,
which not only relieved them from a costly burden and
which required men to guard it, but gave them back
their own soldiers, whom they could replace from
no other source. With the Federals, however, in-
terest and humanity were at issue, and humanity
was sacrificed on the plea of military necessity. By
a mixture of ingenuity and effrontery, favoured by
that success which is virtue in the eyes of
the world, the Federals now turn round and avoid
the opprobrium due to their own acts by throwing it
upon their adversaries, who were the greatest losers
by the system. Mr. BENJAMIN says emphatically
" that the refusal to exchange prisoners was one of
the most fatal blows dealt to the Confederacy
during the war." " Others," he adds, must
judge of the humanity and justice of the policy
which consigned hundreds and thousands of
wretched men to captivity apparently hopeless ; but
I can testify unhesitatingly to its sagacity and
efficacy, and to the pitiless sternness with which
it was executed." His testimony to the
humanity and generosity of JEFFERSON DAVIS is
the same as that of every one who came in contact
with the Southern President. Mr. BENJAMIN'S
evidence has, however, additional weight, from his
long and intimate association with him under vary-
ing circumstances. When urged to stop the cruelties
of BUTLER, M'NEILL, and others by retaliation,
Mr. DAVIS was always immoveable, and declared
that the innocent must not be victimised for the
guilty. In support of this statement Mr. BENJAMIN
mentions the case of some soldiers belonging to
DAIILGREN'S expedition against Richmond. The
papers found on their leader's body after
his fall showed that it was the design to
assassinate Mr. DAVIS and the heads of his
Cabinet, and to fire the city. It was generally
declared that these men had no right to be regarded
as prisoners of war, but as brigands and assassins,
but Mr. DAVIS stood firm, though his firmness
occasioned a division in the Cabinet, declaring that
whatever their offences the men had been received
as claimants to mercy as prisoners, and the
Confederacy would be dishonoured if harm
overtook them. A somewhat striking con-
trast this to the very brittle nature of Federal
military promises, as evidenced by Captain WIRTZ
himself ! Is is not likely that the man so consistent
in his sense of justice and humanity would permit
the enormities with which Confederate subordinates
are charged, and the Federals themselves have been
forced to withdraw his name from the accusation.
The humanity which has been shown in the North
to white and to black is not of so tender a nature
that New York should set up to judge those whom
the Federals themselves encumbered and harassed.

When we call to mind the feeble attitude which
our Government has assumed in all matters relating
to the Danish question, it is positively refreshing to
find the course which France pursues so much
firmer and more decided in its tone. M. DROUYN
DE LHUYS has addressed a circular to the diplomatic
representatives of France abroad, which is most ad-
mirable in its treatment of the Gastein Convention.
There is no hiding of unwelcome truths, and no
departure from the stern criticism which naturally
suggests itself to the mind when such an act as that
of the wilful seizure and monopoly of States has
taken place. In this circular the writer wisely re-
frains from entering into details ; but he seeks to
understand what are the motives which have guided
and influenced the German Powers in the drawing
up these negotiations. It were well if more of the
leading Powers of Europe had followed this example,
and addressed themselves rather to the intentions
than merely confining their remarks to the results
of these treaties and conventions. The world in
general would be more likely to realise to its full
extent the enormity of the oppression and the extent
of the craft of the two great Powers. The abstract
which M. DROUYN DE LIIUYS takes of the long-drawn
out conventions is a capital aid, and brings beforeus
in a masterly manner the ruling spirit which actu-
ated and informed all the proceedings of the chief
actors in the affair. It must have proved a most
unpalatable document for the conspirators them-
selves to peruse, and, doubtless, it will damage them
still more in the estimation of others, if that indeed
were possible. We are able to judge dispassionately
of the matter when we survey the calm and business-
like manner in which the French statesman dis-
cusses the various points of the question. Thus he
asks if the two Powers intended to consecrate the
right of " ancient treaties," and replies most decid-
edly in the negative. The treaty of Vienna pro-
vided for the necessities of the case, and settled the
conditions of existence of the Danish monarchy.
We now see that these " conditions" are overthrown
in the most reckless manner by the German despots,
and no more respect is paid to the decisions of
modern diplomatists than they have exhibited for
the regulations of the statesmen of an older genera-
tion. As M. DROUYN DE LIIUYS emphatically
observes, the Treaty of London was another
proof of the anxiety of Europe for the integ-
rity of Denmark, and has been " torn by
two of the Powers by whom it bad been signed."
The conduct of Austria and Prussia strikes us as all
the lower when we thus follow the statement of
their translations so ably put forward in this
circular.

It is then asked if Austria and Prussia have con-
cocted together for the defence of an unacknow-
ledged succession, and the answer of course is that
they share the disputed inheritance between them,
instead of restoring it to the most rightful claimant.
A still more bitter reproof is conveyed in the re-
sponse to the query as to whether they have con-
sulted the interests of Germany, for their confede-
rates, as is here mentioned, only point their
intentions through the public prints. It is well
known what were the wishes of Germany in this
respect. It desired to establish an " indivisible
Schleswig-Holstein State," which should be alike
separate from
.Denmark and from the rule of the
leading Powers of Germany itself, ruled over by an
independent Prince. The climax of the affair has
bheacan
been r
that thiustclaimant whom Germany set forward
aside in the most unceremonious
fashion, and the Duchies, which were to have been
united, have been put under the dominion of diffe-
rent rulers.

So much for any attention that has been paid to
the oft-repeated wishes of those whose interests
Austria and Prussia are bound to consider and
whose views they were pledged to forward to the
utmost extent of their,;ability. We now come to the
consideration of the claims of the Duchies them..
selves, and certainly they have fared no better
under the ruthless treatment of the rapacious Go-
vernments who have arrogated to themselves the
supreme authority. It was stated over and over
again that it was an undisputed fact that the indis-
solubility of the territories was the " essential
condition of their prosperity," and yet, behold
when the plot had become sufficiently developed
and complete severance takes place, all that has
previously been done and said to the contrary is
conveniently forgotten. But asks M. DROUYN DE

LHUYS has this partition at any rate been con-

ducted in -a manner that disintegrates two rival