The Sun.
London, England, 1856-11-10 00:00:00

CANADA.

We have been favoured with the following tele-
graphic despatch brought by the Persia :

"MONTREAL, 00T. 28.
"The railway was opened yesterday, the 27th
of October, from Montreal to Toronto. The dis-
tance was performed in 14 hours."

FRANCE:
" PARIS, SUNDAY.
" The Emperor and the Empress arrived, at 4
o'clock at Paris, and have left for St. Cloud.
" Their Majesties visited on Saturday the Salle
d'Asile, and the hospital at Compiegne. They met
with the warmest welcome from the population."
The Debats, in commenting upon the address of
Lord Palmerston at Manchester, hopes that, in the
words of the Premier, "as the peace of Europe de-
pends en the fidelity with which Russia performs
the conditions of the Treaty of Paris," that " the
English Government will carry into the execution
of this treaty the spirit of conciliation and good
faith, and the respect for justice and right by which
it demands Russia to regulate her conduct !"
The Siecle's article, headed "La question qui
s'agite," is as follows :
"Although this question has lost much of its
importance in consequence of the conciliatory de-
claration in the Moniteur, we Must address a last
word to our adversaries. There is an old aphor-
ism, that to understand persons aright you must
fancy yourself in their position. We shall briefly
describe the position which our opponents would
impose upon England. Let it be supposed that
we, France, had remained in the Crimea and the
Black Sea, and that Russia did not execute the
Treaty of Paris. Would we consent to delegate
the execution of that treaty to a.congress ? Would
we consent to raise our camps and withdraw our
vessels 1 Would there be found a single public
journal that would dare to advocate such weakness,
such an abandonment of all prudence and all dig-
nity ? Assuredly not. Everybody in France would
say with one consent—' We are in the Black Sea,
let us remain there till the treaty is executed.
Let us not run the risk of having to undertake
a new expedition.' But because it is England,
and not ourselves, that is in this position, can we
ask her to do what we would not do if we were in
her place ? That is neither just nor reasonable,
and we feel persuaded that after the first surprise,
after having better considered the question, those
who have taken the was mest part against England
will not persist in condemning her to pass under
the yoke of an European judgment, when she is
only acting within the letter of the treaties. For
the rest, the very moderate way in which the
Moniteur, in few words, explains the nature of
the difference will doubtless have more influence
in calming our contemporaries than the remon-
strance which we addressed to them the day before
yesterday. ln order to excite public opinion against
our allies of Inkerman and Sebastopol, the parti-
sans of the Russian alliance confound two moral
situations essentially different. They assimilate
England to Austria. In the first place, the
intimate alliance between England and Austria,
which is held up as a fact, in order to throw odium
upon the English government, can only be believed
in by those who forget everything when influenced-
by their passions. There is no serious politician in
Europe who does not know the terrible war which
Lord Palmerston has waged against Austria, and
of the steady reprisals made by Austrian diplomat-
ists. Celebrated books have been written before
this hand-to-hand duel, and this is all we nerd say
to those who circulate the rumour of an alliance
between Lord Palmerston and the government
whose publicist was the Count de Fiquelmont. In
the next place, the moral situation of England
and Austria in the East are not the same. Aus-
tria is not in the Principalities by the same original
title that England is in the Black Sea. Austria
did not fight. She does not occupy the Princi-
palities by virtue of a victory, but in pursuance
of a private treaty between her and the
Porte, made long prior to the treaty of
Paris the Treaty of Paris merely fixed
the period for her evacuation of these
territories, in vague terms, aussitot que faire se
pourra (Art. 31), and added that the period was to
be arranged between her and the Porte. England,
on the contrary, occupies no territory. She had
ships in the Black Sea when Sebastopol was taken ;
she keeps them there, and unless the Porte for-
mally calls upon her to withdraw them, she is
perjeqly justified in leaving them there as long as
she fears for Turkey. This consideration reminds
us to supply au omission made by many of those
writers who have pronouncedagainst England, and
who are now called to moderation by the Moniteur
in the person of the Constitutionnel. They com-
pletely forget that after the Treaty of Paris there
was another treaty called the treaty of guarantee.
Now this treaty, concluded on April 15, stipulates:
"Art. 1. The high contracting parties jointly and
separately guarantee the independence and integ-
rity of the Ottoman empire laid down in the treaty
concluded at Paris the 30th March, 1856. Art. 2.
Any infraction of the stipulations of the treaty
will be considered by the undersigned powers as a
cares belli. They will come to an understanding
with the Sublime Porte as to the measures which
may have become necessary, and will without delay
arrange between themselves the employment to be
made of their naval and military forces." Had
our adversaries read the first article of the Treaty
of Paris, they would have seen that it is not a ques-
tion of a new Congress. Each power guarauteee
the integrity of the Ottoman Expire, not only
jointly with the other powers, but also separately.
This is clearly expressed. Moreover, the word
"separately" involves each power to the extent of
its guarantee. England has not only guaranteed
that integrity in concert with France and
Austria; it has likewise guaranteed it alone,
and France and Austria are in the same po-
sition. England does not require our con-
sent to remain in the Black Sea, nor should we
require hers in order to protect the Ottoman em-
pire from any danger that might arise. We repeat
that the partisans of the Russian alliance have
purposely rendered this question obscure. Not
only have they sought to cast odium on the conduct
of England, but they have caused the French press
to lose from view the exact notion of the rights
conferred on France by treaties. They have mis-
led the public. When we seek to re-establish the
truth, it is solely in the interest of our country,
which may find itself one of these days in the posi-
tion of England. The treaty of guarantee allows
to each power the right of separate guarantee.
This right is ours ; why therefore refuse it to Eng-
land ? We have been reproached with exaltation.
Nevertheless, we reason with moderation, and
we appeal to the common sense of the public.
Let those journals which abuse us enter into a
more minute study of the question ; they will dis-
cover their error. . . . . We maintain what
we have said respecting the secret intentions of the
ultra-conservatives of Europe, and on the necessity,
of the firmest alliance between France and England
—a genuine alliance, in which each power will
preserve its liberty of action and sovereign inde-
pendence. The boldness of the reactionists renders
this alliance more than ever necessary. Since the
pease, we have witnessed the attempt at Neucha-
tel, the circular of Prince Gortschakoff, the resis'
ance of the King of Naples, the royalist reyolution
in Spain. These events should teach us prudence,
for either they have no signification, or they are
the forerunners of others. The intimate union on
a footing of equality. of the two great western
nations can alone conjure the danger.
The .essemblee, replying to yesterday's article in
the Siecle, objects that it has inaccurately cited the
articles of the treaty of April 15, which, according
to the text published by the Annuaire des Deux
Mondes, states that the high contracting parties
guarantee the independence of the Ottoman empire,
nob jointly and separately," as the Siecle says,
but solidarily (solidairement). This argument t f
the Assembles, however, amounts to nothing, for
solidairement means jointly and separately.

.M................. 1

A Paris correspondent of the Independance of
Brussels writes :—" There is no foundation in the
reported journey of Prince Napoleon to the East•
The visit of the prince to the court of Wirtemberg
had, it is said, for principal object a nifktritnonia!
alliance, there beilig nofuC atea of a ni,ion
kis Imperial Highness and one of the daughters c f
the Duke of Lenchtenberg and of the Grand.
Duchess Maria of Russia."