The Sun.
London, England, 1870-07-28 00:00:00

OUR COTEMPORARIES---This Morning.

THE SECRET TREATY

The Times says that who6ver reads M. 011ivier's letter
must come to the conclusion that it possesses no value
whatever, except as another illustration of that Minister's
character. A more important contribution on the French
side is found in a memorandum inserted in the Journal
Officiel. Acknowledging, as has throughout been con-
fessed by France, that such a treaty was in some way or
other mooted between Count Bismarck and M.Benedetti,
it does not repeat the declaration previously made, that it
originated with the Prussian Minister. The Prus-
sian Government, on the other hand, repeat their
former statements, and have taken a formal step
to prove the accuracy of one of the most important.
Independently of the fact of Lord Augustus Loftus hav-
iag telegraphed to the Government that the Draught
Treaty at Berlin was in M. Benedetti's handwriting, it
was plain that no such charge would have been made un-
less it could be substantiated. Nothing could be easier
than to challenge the accuracy of the allegation were it
false, and nothing could be more fatal than any attempt
to evade the proof. We are thus left much where we
were yesterday morning, and must wait a little longer
for a full explanation of what is justly- described by
the SiOc/e as " a scandalous attack on the rights of
neutral nations and on the good faith of Treaties."
The first statement in M. 011ivier's letter—and it is the
whole substance of the communication—suggests even
more than it denies. It does not, in truth, refute the
charge which, speaking under the greatest reserve, the
Times said was advanced, that means had been recently
taken to hint that the unadopted Treaty was still avail-
able as a basis of peace. His language does not touch
the accusation. At the same time the Times may freely
admit that there is no difficulty in supposing the hint to
have been given without M. 011ivier knowing anything
about it.

The Daily News says the French Government does not
take refuge in the common plea of. " Not guilty," on the
tout maurais cas est niable, but ignoring altogether any
writen project, it reduces the " alleged Treaty "to the
impalpable dust of " several negotiations," and of ideas
which may have been raised iu conversations.
To the choice between these contradictory interpreta-
tions the letter addressed by M. 011ivier to a friend
in England will not, the News fears, lend much as-
sistance. The Minister of Justice is delightfully effu-
sive and affectionate in his communicatians, and he
is good enough to assure his friend in England that
the Cabinet of the Second of January never nego-
tiated or concluded any Treaty with Prussia. This
is in reply to rumours of the projected Treaty of
1866) for the annexation of Belgium having been revived
by France within the last three weeks as a condition of
peace. No one has ever accused M. 011ivier and his pre-
sent colleagues of having projected a Treaty with Prus-
sia four years ago. M. 011ivier assures his friend in
England, with most praiseworthy emphasis, that
the Cabinet of the Second of January have no
secret policy hidden behind their avowed policy.
Yet when M. 011ivier told the Deputies in the lobbies of
the Chamber the other day that the Prince
of Hohenzollern had renounced the Throne of
Spain, and that peace was therefore assured, his
language was disavowed by the Duc de Gramont.
How long has that " secret policy," which initiated the
Italian war of 1859, the Mexican expedition, and the
German war of 1866, been the same as the avowed policy
of the Emperor Napoleon's talking Ministers and diplo-
matic representasives ?
The etandard, says the Times, has performed the happy
dispatch by publishing the letter of M. Emile 011ivier,
which—to speak .with German emphasis—gives the lie
direct to th eone statement which it made its portentous
revelation really interesting. If the Times had simply
said such a projet de traite was presented by France to
Prussia four years ago nobody would have paid much
attention to it. The Standard should have pointed out
what all persons conversant with such questions know,
that the Times draft treaty must necessarily be a for-
, gery; but a scheme which fell to the ground at the time
for giving France the compensation which she
notoriously demanded would not have had the
slightest interest for well-informed Englishmen.
But the assertion of the Times,that France has attempted
to negotiate with Prussia recently upon the basis of the
alleged treaty, and that the rejection of the proposals by
Prussia was the motive of the declaration of war by
France, produced for the time the effect intended ; but pub-
lic opinion did not long remain the victim of this Prussian
dodge. The matter was sufficiently cleared up yesterday
morning when the Times published 011ivier's letter.
The official journals of both countries have spoken, and
it is quite clear from their statements that France pro.
posed no such treaty, but that the Prussian Foreign
Minister and the French Ambassador talked of the com-
pensation to France for Prussian aggrandisement. The
sting of the Times' story lay in the assertion that the pro-
posals of its draft treaty had been made again to Prussia
since this squabble arose. That statement is shown to
be false. Our contemporary was simply gulled. As for
the remaining part of the story, it would be of no import-
ance if it were true. It is now proved to be false.
The Post asserts that the letter in which M. Emile 01-
livier has thought fit to send to the Times is a document
not so remarkable for what it denies as for what it reveals.
It is true that Lord Clarendon was the channel for pro-
positions for a reciprocal disarmament between France

and Prussia, and that France was willing to disarm.
It is also equally obvious that Lord Clarendon's difficulty
in his delicate enterprise must have been found in the
Prussian Constitution, which makes every citizen a soldier.
Prussia could not accept any proposal for disarmament
which would involve a change in the fundamental laws of
the kingdom. The mention of Lord Clarendon's name
revives the universal sorrow for the loss of a statesman
who, from purely exceptional advantages, might have
been able to prevent the recent rupture, and even ulti-
mately to bring about the abandonment of the exagge-
rated armaments which made nations impatient, and
have fatally tempted Rulers to use the huge forces at their
command.