The Sun.
London, England, 1871-02-18 00:00:00

THE WAR.-ATTITUDE OF ENGLAND,

The Times considers that the most remarkable circum-
stance connected with last night's debate on the Minis-
terial policy during the war was the profound silence of
the Opposition. The speakers who took part in the dis-
cussion were numerous—no less than fifteen in all—
and the points of view taken were almost as
numerous as the speakers. Each looked upon the
history of the great struggle under a different light,
and the opinions and judgments expressed were,
of course, divergent in a corresponding degree. The.
Ministry admit that it was possible they had not always
recognised the precise moment for action. We all
know the rules they . have laid down for their
conduct. Lord Granville formulated them, in a
speech in the House of Lords at the close of last Session,
in words which have been often repeated with little varia-
tion. To do nothing that did not promise to be effectual ;
not to offer to mediate unless both belligerents were
desirous of the help of a mediator ; to abstain from expres-
sing any judgmea which it was not intended to enforce—
these were the maxims of their policy. It is
only fair to the Ministry to hold that their
conduct must be construed with reference to the events
that were before them, and so construed their defence
is easy. We did ask Russia to join us in proposing terms
of peace for the acceptance of the belligerents ; only last
month we suggested moderation to Prussia ; at this
moment the conditions of peace are, according to the
Prime Minister, a matter of watchful concern to
neutrals. It is right it should be so. Taking
the lowest ground, it is impossible to deny the
force of Mr. Bass's observation that no manner of harm
can accrue to us from our appealing to Prussia in the
cause of moderation, and we are bound from motives of
humanity, as well as from consideration for the future
peace of Europe, to leave no pains unspared to bring
about a settlement between the belligerents that shall be
permanently respected by both.
Reviewing Mr. Auberon Herbert's speech in the House
of Commons on the duty of neutral Powers, the Daily
News remarks :—Within the past few days, indeed, the
situation in France has undergone a marked change.
In that interval Paris has capitulated. A National
Assembly has been elected. A new Government has
been formed at Bordeaux, and its mission is to negotiate
for peace. It is at such a moment, if at any moment, that
neutral nations ought to offer their services as mediators.
The probability is that France and Germany are far from
being agreeed as to the terms of peace which are just
and reasonable. It is natural that both should regard the
question of Alsace and Lorraine from very different
standpoints; and, in fact, on this point there will be no
agreement except under the pressure of necessity. If
France is to surrender the provinces which she has held
for two hundred years, it will be under a more or less
enunciated protest. The question of money will
present less difficulty. that being a penalty which
involves much less national humiliation. The slow
process of years will remove it even from recollection,
but the presence of Germans in territory which was once
French will never be overlooked, or regarded without a
pang of shame and a secret hope of revenge. As fcr the
temporary triumph of a march through Paris—which has
assumed an extracadinary importance within the last few
days—that is a matter which no dispassionate neutral can
regard with much complacency. The fact is, that
if this march takes place, it will have its
double origin in national vanity and national jealousy.
The German Emperor, who is at once headstrong and
nothing but a soldier, may, it is to be feared,
flatter his own military pride under the guise of
gratifying his troops ; and the remote prospect
of such a thing is already driving the Parisians
into imprudent, if pardonable, rhetoric. It is

under those peculiar conditions that the neutral

nations are asked to undertake the difficult task of media-
tion. If they accept the duty, there is no time to lose.
Interference by force of arms is out of the question, and
can only be urged by fanatics who have got far beyond
the boundaries of common sense. The object of all me-
diation at this moment is to secure peace by peaceful
means ; and we earnestly hope that any action which may
be taken by our Government in the matter will be fully
and immediately successful.
The Standard observes :—lf we assume that a condition
of things has arrived in which two belligerents are so
anxious for peace that they only want an intermediary,
they will not have to wait long, and the services of that
intermediary will be very slight. That is not a part
which England should consider worthy of her.
Her mediation should not be confined within
these pitiful limits—within this carrying of letters
and messages, and this careful avoidance of any
expression of opinion on her own part. It should have
considered with Austria and Italy the question what
terms were in the general European interests fair to Ger-
many, possible of acceptance on the part of France, and con-
sistent with the maintenance of tranquillity and prosperity
in Europe. That Germany might not have been particu-
larly pleased at such an intervention is possible enough,
but that does not prove, as some of the advo-
cates of the Ministerial policy contended, that the step
would not have been a just and a politic one. What
possible influence can we hope to exercise upon the cha-
racter of the peace if we are not prepared for Prussian.
dissatisfaction with our overtures. If we are to do nothing
that is not satisfactory it is quite clear we can do nothing
for France, and had better frankly avow that we
no longer pretend to be a European Power.
That the English Government should not have interfered
for the purpose of bringing about peace at a time when
both belligerents did not desire any such interposition is a
doctrine which has not only a good deal of plausibility,
but some small justification. But even in this event of
both belligerents refusing our good offices and desiring
to continue the struggle. England alone, or with the
Neutral Powers, would still have the right to make
the attempt to stay a conflict in which interests of
a far wider nature than the gains or losses of the
belligerents are concerned. But in this case it is not true
that both belligerents repudiated the intervention of the
British Government. As Mr. Auberon Herbert and Sir
Robert Peel shewed by numerous quotations, many ap-
peals were made to the English Government for the nee
of the good offices it had tendered, but they were uniformly
rejected, apparently because the Cabinet apprehended,
and had not the courage to properly resent, a rebuke from.
Count Bismarck.

The Telegraph says :—Cheered by the thought that
Mr. Cardwell had enabled England to defy the
menaces of Count Bismarck, and hence that we
might all breathe freely, the House of Com-
mons let loose its pent-up feelings last night,
and treated itself to the luxury of a grand oratorical
outburst about the war. Mr. Herbert asks that the
English Government shall use its influence to obtain such
terms of peace for France as may secure the tranquillity
of Europe. He found a vociferous ally in Sir
Robert Peel, who denounced the Government for reducing
England to a "policy of obliteration." In a few days,
or even a few hours, Germany may formally make known
the conditions which she 0,111 exact from France; and
then this country may h.,. • a clear title to inter-
vene. If Germany should demand a larger in-
demnity than France can pay, or such a por-

lion of the national territory as she will never
consent to see permanently alienated, England may pro-
test in the name of that community of nations to which
she belongs, and the tranquillity of which is thus
menaced. It is an utter mistake to fancy, as Mr.
Herbert does, that we should speak at once, in order
to let Germany know what we deem fair terms of
peace. The peculiarity of the situation forbids us to

take any such course. On the one hand, we cannot
recommend France to hand over the people of
Alsace and Lorraine to Germany. Such a course is con-

demned by the fundamental
it
principles of English Libe-
ralism. On the other hand, is useless for us to urge that
Germany should exact no territory whatever, for she
would laugh such counsel to scorn. But, when the terzi-
torial demand shall have been made by Prussia, and
epted in principle by her foe, it may then be
the duty of this country to join the other neutral
Powers on behalf of France. England could not be
guided by the philosophic principles of Mr. Auberon.
Herbert, or the hectoring principles of Sir Robert Peel,
unless her army were the greatest in the world, and she
were as eager for war as she is for peace; and the with-
drawal of the motion last night was practical evidence
that the House of Commons approves the wise middle
course followed by the Government.

The Queen of Spain, on her way to Madrid, was
obliged to stop at Allasia in consequence of a sudden in-
disposition.

Sir Arthur Guinness, Bart., was married on
Thursday, at Bantry Church, to Lady Olive White,
daughter of the Earl of Bantry.
The Globe says :—A Baronet and M.P. is
likely to be co-respondent in a divorce suit before long.
The petitioner is a military man.
The London teetotallers contemplate starting a
hospital " for the treatment of disease apart 'from acoholic
medication." The experiment was tried with considerable
success at the Lying-in Hospital, Endell-street, a little
while ago.
The Count and the Countess d'Eu are expected to
arrive in England shortly. The Count is the son of the
Duke of Nemours (second son of Louis Philippe), and the
Countess is the daughter of the Emperor of Brazil.