The Sun.
London, England, 1856-05-27 00:00:00

_l3)
Vibf

LONDON, TUESDAY, MAY 27, 1856.

The Separate Treaty of the 15th of April
entered into by Austria, France, and England,
appears not only to have excited considerable
annoyance amongst the other parties represented
at the Conference, but excluded from any partici-
pation therein, and also to have occasioned the
rumours respecting a Secret Treaty of a still more
objectionable character—rumours that were only
set at rest by the declaration of Lord PALMER-
STON a week since in the House of Commons.

We confess that we cannot in any degree sympa-
thise with the complaints of Russia or Prussia,
and should, on the contrary, rejoice at any addi-
tional and more stringent guarantee that could be
obtained against the aggressions of the former, or
the time-serving neutrality of the latter.
But we do feel for Sardinia, which has been
seriously aggrieved by the manner in which she
has been dealt with by those who were still her
allies.

The words adopted in the 7th Article of the
Treaty of the 30th March are exactly those con-
tained in annex A, to Protocol No. 11 of the
Vienna Conferences. At the next meeting, that of the
21st April, 1855, Prince GORTSCHAKOFF, by cer-
tain explanations, frittered away its value, point-
ing out the very limited sense which he attached
to that engagement. He declared that he di-I
not attach to that guarantee the sense of an active
guarantee of the-.territorial integrity of the Otto-
man Empire. This restrictive interpretation
elicited expressions of deep regret from the Repre-
sentatives of the other Powers. It was palpable
that Russia contemplated at that very moment an
evasion of its provisions. This simple fact should
have placed the Plenipotentiaries at Paris on their
guard, and induced them to exercise a

salutary caution in insisting on a form that
would be more binding on the Muscovite
conscience—or, rather, which would leave no loop-
hole for wriggling out of the spirit of the engage-
ment. They had been fully warned. The protest
of Prince GORTSCHAKOFF had been duly recorded
in the Viennese Protocols.

The stipulation was therefore perfectly value-
less so far as Russia was concerned ; and it might
easily be conceived that on any dispute arising
the German Powers would take any view most
favourable to their own int3rests. It was, there-
fore, right to fix Austria as firmly as that shufflina
and double-dealing Power would suffer itself to
be bound. We do not therefore object to the
matter so much as to the moaner of that subse-
quent contract, and the slight -which it was calcu-
lated to inflict on Sardinia, who had faithfully
and honourably discharged every obligation which
she had contracted, and had earned for herself an
indefeasible right to be made a party in any „_
gagement entered into by France and England.
It is true that the Treaty is not a secret one,
but it has been Pertinently asked, " Whether it
was not intended by its authors to be so ?" The
Morning Advertiser explains the nature of the
accident that led to its publication, and there is a
oraisemb/ance about the statement that induces us
to lend an easy credence thereto. A correspondent
of our contemporary declares the following
to be a correct sketch of the events which
led to the frustration of this mischievous design.
"It would appear that Count ORLOFF, in the first
place, having his suspicions aroused, contrived to
obtain, Surreptitiously, from an employe in the
Foreign-office at Paris, a copy of this precious
document. The Count, naturally infuriated at
this under-hand dealing and breach of faith on the
part of the Allies, gave vent to his indignation
with more vigour than discretion, and, ere long,
news of the wrathful ebullitions of the Russian
Plenipotentiaries was conveyed to the Tuileries,

and thence to the English Government. In this fix, 1
that truly English Statesman, the Earl of CLAREN.
DON, finding that the cat was let out of the
bag, made a virtue of necessity, and fe'lring the
exposure in the German Press, such as led to the
disgrace of his predecessor at Vienna last year,
took the bull by the horns, and boldly, but in
silence, laid the Treaty on the table of both
Houses of Parliament. It is, Sir, to this clever
' coup de main' of the Foreign Secretary that we
owe the ill-concealed astonishment of the Imperial
Moniteur, the undisguised jealousy and distrust
of Prussia and Sardinia, and, above and beyond
all, it is solely to this unworthy juggle that the
British House of Commons owe the presentation ,
of 'the Secret Tripartite Treaty of 1856."
The great error seems to be in letting Russia
out of the position which even the Viennese Re-
presentatives considered indispensable, and which
partly led to the abortive result of the first Con-
ferences. Prince GORTSCHAKOFF considered the
blood of Russian subjects belonging to Russia
alone ; that is to say, that it should only be shed
in promoting the traditional policy of the House
of ROMANOFF, but not in maintaining the balance
of power in Europe. If others interpreted the
engagement in a similar manner it is obvious that
it would not be worth the paper on which it was
written. Why, then, should Russia be per-
mitted
to avoid a responsibility which Austria,
France, and England deemed it necessary
to assume ? The separate Treaty proved beyond
the possibility of doubt how little dependence the
parties thereto reposed in the moderation or pro-
mises of the AUTOCRAT, and their own deprecia-
tory estimate of the Precious Peace, for which the
people of Great Britain are expected to rejoice.
It also affords a pretext for dissatisfaction to
Russia and Prussia, of which they will not be
slow to avail themselves whenever a suitable
opportunity may arise.

But it is a direct and unwarrantable insult to
Sardinia. It was immediately after the ventila-
tion of the Italian question at the Conferences that
those who had been so faithfully assisted by Sar-
dinia chose to exclude her from their counsels,
and to patcla up an arrangement intended to be
secret with Austria. Had that secrecy been
observed, —had it only oozed out that there was
a private treaty between the parties, it would
have been universally considered that it related
exclusively to the state and condition of Italy,
and must have operated greatly to advance the
views of Austria, and to injure the sacred cause of
which VICTOR EMMANUEL is the chosen champion.
The happy accident that brought the matter to
light has prevented the greater part of the mis-
chief that might have arisen, but Sardinia may
still justly complain of the positive insult, and the
contemplated injury. If applied to, she would
gladly have joined in the guarantee, and she has
already proved the value of her alliance. We
suppose, however, her exclusion was owing to the
prevailing German influence, and the unfortu-
nate disposition to truckle to Austria, so fre-
quently and so painfully manifested since the
commencement of the Eastern difficulties.

The Marquis of BLANDFORD, Lord PALMER-
STON, and the Bishops ! What a singular misfit.
Had the subject been Italy or arbitration, and the
catechists Mr. GLADSTONE or Mr. GIBSON, that
would have passed ; or, had the subject remained
Bishops, and the Premier been Lord JOHN Rus-
SELL, that would have been appropriate ; he
would have deemed himself but too happy to be
the creator of any number of Bishops—cadet-
Bishops, if they would suit, or assistant-Bishops,
or sub-Bishops, or reversionary-Bishops, " feeding
the flock not for (present) filthy lucre," but for
the precio us mantle left by each successor of the
apostles on his beatification ; or supernumerary
Bishops unattached, ready, like chessman, to be
moved wherever they were most wanted ; or, a
Bishop of Labuan or some other colonial rocks, if
a Bishop must have a local designation, whose
dioceses could certainly shift very well without
them. Lord JOHN would, we are confident, have
had a Bishop-making bill ready at twenty-four
hours' notice at any time. But Lord PALMERSTON
—what can he do in that line ? Had, indeed,
SIDNEY SMITH been living, he could have prof-
fered his brother humourist at once for the ser-
vice ; but, to ask the joking Premier to pity and
to aid septuagenarian episcopacy—what can Lord
PALMERSTON care about so grave a subject ?
The Marquis of BLANDFORD, no doubt, was
serious enough. To what' purpose were it for
him to get the ecclesiasiical parishes of England
as square and trim as United States' counties, if
the clergymen are to be " birched " and honoured
with " fools' caps " by octogenarian Bishops ? Hi-
therto age has merely kept bishops to their easy
chairs ; they have quietly received their episco-
pal revenues, have enjoyed their otium, cum, dig-
nitate, and, an adjacent Bishop, expecting him-
self one day to need similar assistance, has per-
formed the ceremonies, all whose validity depends
on the magic power transmitted .from the apostles.
Thus the want of a Bishop has never been felt.
The House of Lords could spare him and his
diocese could sparehim; the only persons aggrieved
were the select few who wished him in a happier
world while their patron was Prime Minister.
In a recent case, however, age and irritability
have come on together. The Archbishop of CANTER-
BURY is over-anxious to drive the people to church
—in so far, that if they will not go there, they
shall not at least hear sacred music in unconse-
crated parks. But his suffragan of Bangor has
no notion of such over church-going. In his dio-
cese they shall have no double services at Church.
Let them well mark, learn, and inwardly digest,
one sermon, it will do them more goad than
two ; or let them have a frolic in the evening.
Ho of Lambeth would shut the Park gates if he
could, while he of Bangor will shut the Church
doors, whether rectors and curates like it or not.
One says—No band in the Parks on Sunday
evenings; the other says—No organ and choir in
the Church more than once a-day. One politely
constrains a Premier, in the face of the nation,
—the other furiously threatens a parish clergy-
man, and a member of the House of Commons,
and prints his scoldings too. It is hard to say
which injures religion most. We must, however,
think that the 'Archbishop is the more dan-
gerous. Nititur in vetitum ; deny the people plea-
sure in one form on the Sunday, and have it they
Probably, in a worse ; tell them they shall
not have Church open even if they wish it, and
they will rush
drives them to ttehothpeubeloineonutsiCe
e3lB.
ANGORonlyt CANTERBURYo
a dissenting chapel.

Angry Bishops after all, even at four score, are
to
manage. Even an act cf
aHENRYwkwar beingsw
who had he been
living would have
made it or some other serve, will not reach the
Bishop of BANGOR, since it provides that the
Bishop must ask for help ; and we have no King
or Minister now who can make a prelate ask as
humbly as could be wished. It is curious to
imagine the look of the TI7DOR, if told that he
could not appoint a coadjutor because the Bishop
would not ask. Not ask. Contravene the intent
of my act of Parliament ! He would reply—Tell
my Lord Chancellor to have A bill drawn and
passed forthwith, empowering the Head of the