The Sun.
London, England, 1870-08-05 00:00:00

LONDON, FRIDAY, AUGUST 5, 1870,

"Released unconditionally by order of the Empe-
ror." Further—" The Provost-Marshal is instructed
to declare to English journalists that the EMPEROR
relies on on their honour to act with discretion and
judgment, wishing, as he does, to preserve the most
cordial relations with England." Further still—
"and recommending English correspondents to
address themselves to the Provost-Marshal in every
difficulty." Fragments from a telegram, dated 2nd
August, from the French head-quarters at Metz.
in relation to the arrest and liberation of the Standard
correspondent. The telegram being authenticated
by G. A. SALA and AZAMAT BATTIK, respectively the
Daily Telegraph and Pall Mall Gazette correspon-
dents. It is as it should be. By that decision of the
EMPEROR, matters are thus at once and henceforth
placed upon this right footing as between the authority
of the Commander-in-Chief of one of the two great
belligerent armiesnow confronting each other in Rhine-
land, and the perfect freedom of utterance, that is of
writing, accorded by that authority to the English
Press as represented in the immediate vicinity of the
French head-quarters by this or by that Special Corres-
pondent. Captain SWORD and Captain PEN have
Dome to a thoroughly honourable and a thoroughly
amicable understanding. The relations established
between the English journalists and the EMPEROR
are henceforth as those existing between a host and
his guests. There is no compact between them.
No terms have been entered into. The future is
left to itself unconditionally. Relying upon their
honour, the EMPEROR counts upon the English
journalists acting with discretion and judgment—.
an intimation that applies equally, of course, to
the responsible editors in London and to the
special correspondents representing them in the
immediate vicinity of the camp of this one, at least,
of the two great belligerents. The implicit confi-
dence reposed by the EMPEROR in the honour, as
well as in the discretion and judgment of the chief
professional intelligencers of his allies, the English,
will not be belied. Whenever in moments of
doubt or difficulty as to what ought or ought not to
be included in the correspondence—meaning when
there is any scruple or hesitation as to what might
seem to them a precipitate announcement or a prema-
ture revelation—they are a'ithorised to put them-
selves at once into communication with the PROVOST
MARSHAL. Again we say, it is as it should
be. The decision arrived at by the EMPEROR, in
this matter, is one worthy of him, and of the respon-
sible agents to whom it especially applies. The
momentary doubt felt as to the difficulty, if not
the impossibility, of providing the English
public with rapid and authentic information.
as to the fluctuations and vicissitudes of the great
war now being waged by the Franco-Prussian armies
in the country bordering on the Rhine, is by one
stroke of the imperial pen, or rather by one utter-
ance of the imperial lips, dissipated. English jour-
nalism will acquit itself of the trust reposed in its
honour, its judgment, and its discretion.

MR. HENRY LABOUCHERE has written a letter
to the Daily Telegraph, which sets forth
the• reasons why we should not fulfil our
duty to Belgium in the event of her inde-
pendence b3ing menaced. The letter would have had
more weight if it had not been signed. Mr.
HENRY LABOUCHERR'S antecedents are not of
a character to lend importance to any com-
munication which he may make.

The main argument is that England is not bound
to defend Belgium, both because the Treaty which
impoies that obligation upon her has
been virtually abrogated by subsequent events, and
because England has not fulfilled treaty obligations
on other occasions. The first theory is a favourite
one with the Emperor NAPOLEON. He announced
it at Auxerre after the war of 1866, and the Secret
Treaty seems to skew that he has been endeavour-
ing to carry it out in a practical manner.
We may be pardoned if we fail to take the same
view of the matter, especially as we find that this
abr•gation of treaties is always for the benefit of
France, and not at all for that of England. There
is really no reason that we can see why we should allow
the Third NAPOLEON to take possession of Antwerp,
and to use the First NAPOLEON'S words, hold a loaded
pistol at the heart of England. If our assent is
to be obtained to this new partition-perfidy
at least some inducement should be offered to us.
But there is none that could be offered. We do not
want a foot of ground on the Continent of Europe ;
we do not want Algeria or the French settlements
on the West Coast, or any French colony. (We
believe that France has one or two colonies some-
where.) We could not even take Mexico if
Mexico were France's to offer. But we do most
decidedly object to France taking Antwerp for rea-
sons of our own—for selfish reasons, if Mr.
LABOU CHEM?. likes to put it so. Yet selfish
reasons are not the only motives that
prompt us. We still have some regard ifor our
plighted word. We cannot yet bring ourselves to
forsake the work of our own hands that gal-
ant little nation, that bulwark and pattern
of constitutional government on a continent too much
at the mercy of " personal " autocrats. If we fought
to maintain that very "Sick Man," decrepit Maho-
metan Turkey, much more should we fight to main-
tain vigorous and Christian, though minute,
Belgium. But it is said the treaty in question does
not bind us to fight; it simply binds us to accept
a responsibility so long as the othercontracting powers
recognise it. In other words,
.the treaty renders us
responsible to France, Prussia, Russia, and, Austria,
but not at all to Belgium. This, we believe, was
Lord STANLEY'S idea with regard to the Luxem-
bourg guarantee of 1867 ; but that is a wholly diffe-
rent matter from the guarantee of 1831 and 1839 with
respect to Belgium. Finally, it is urged that we