The Sun.
London, England, 1856-12-18 00:00:00

and the advocate par excellence of peace—the
Monarch who could not be stimulated to action
by any considerations of honour or expediency
during the Russian war is now prepared
to disturb the tranquillity of Europe !—in a per-
sonal quarrel of no r-al consequence to him-
self or any one else, except those who are defend-
ing their unquestionable rights and privileges.
The bark of Clicquot is well known to be worse
than his bite ; and his mysterious hints and '
ominous announcements would speedily be for-
gotten but for the injudicious, we might almost
say the criminal, conduct of the French Govern-
ment. They have fanned the flame they under-
took to extinguish, and if war should arise it
will be solely attributable to the proceedings of
the volunteer peace-maker. Warlike Sir Lucius
O'TRIGGER will force the German ACRES into the
arena, hinting that there is very snuglying at Notre
Dame. It is indeed a case of personal vanity with
the second as well as the principal. The mediation
of France was requested by Prussia, and that
flattered his pride. It was most properly rejected
by the authorities of the Swiss Confederation, and
that irritated his amour propre. The advances of
Clicquot were regarded as " a courteous deference"
for his
political situation, while the civil refusal
of the Federal Republic to permit its inalienable
rights and privileges to be frittered away is un-
hesitatingly designated as "a lamentable obsti-
nacy, an exaggerated susceptibility, and (hic illce
laclbrymce) a complete indifference to French
counsels."

All this is very bad. It is in the worst pos-
sible taste and feeling. But more remains be-
hind. There is a very significant intimation, a
scarcely concealed threat, that Switzerland must
"not be astoniAhed if, in the course of events,
she should no longer find that good-will which
she might so easily have obtained at a trifling
sacrifice I " This, in other words, is that France
is prepared to join with Prussia, because
her gratuitous offer has been civilly re-
jected—that she will strive to enforce a system
on the people opposed to their wishes and feel-
ings. Such a course might without any glaring
inconsistency be adopted by Russia or Austria,
but no amount of the spirit of Imperialism can
render congenial to the Government of the barri-
cades that which, whatever may now be the case,
was founded and for some time sustained on the
votes and the will of the people.

What is the Royal Agricultural Society for ?
Will somebody be good enough to tell us. Half
the controversies that have agitated the world
have either arisen or been greatly aggravated
through the want of proper definitions. Else-
where,
in our present impression, is a complaint
against the society in question. It has done
something it ought not to have done, or rather
left undone something it ought to have done. So
says a correspondent of a morning contemporary.
To be more precise, he charges the Royal Agri-
cultural Society with having neglected to reward
or encourage merit, in the person of Mr. FOWLER,
the inventor of a new steam-plough.
There can be no question, we imagine, as to
Mr. FOWLER'S being worthy of reward or encour-
agement. His invention, in point of fact, is so
deserving of approval that, despite the Society's
alleged neglect of the inventor, he is admitted to
be in the way of making a good thing of it, the
agricultural community recognising and appreci-
ating its value, and proving their appreciation by
applying it to the cultivation of their lands. The
question of merit being conceded, are there ade-
quate grounds for charging the Society with ne-
glect of the inventor ? Was it its duty to reward
or encourage him ? If it was, the charge, we take
it, is established. If not—rhat is the Royal
Agricultural Society for ?

Let us glance at a fact or two in the case.
Here, at all events, we have the above Society
offering a prize of 5001. fur " the steam cul-
tivator which shall in the most efficient
manner turn over the soil, and be an economical
substitute for the plough or spade." To this we
find appended the allegation that, of all the con-
tending parties, Mr. FOWLER was the only one
whose invention at all approximated to the fulfil-
ment of the prescribed conditions. The prize
was not given—no encouragement to Mr. FOWLER
was offered—though, with a paltry improvement
or twe, his invention would have won him the
prize. This may have been properly withheld
But was he not entitled to some encouragement ?
In order to arrive at a conclusion we should know
what the Society is for. Is it for the promotion
of agriculture, by means of rewards offered to
those who contribute to its progress by superior
skill and invention ? If so—and what other
definition can we arrive at ?—the Royal Agricul-
tural Society is clearly culpable. Admit that it
was justified in withholding the prize, is it possible
to believe the society did not fail in its duty
when, with a confessedly most important inven-
tion, so nearly approaching perfection, and which
must have cost the inventor so much money,
brought before it, the inventor was suffered to
leave the ground sans prize, sans medal, sans any
sort of tangible reward or honorary distinction ?
The interpretation of the matter seems to be
this. The society, judging it by this instance,
lhas outlived its original spirit, and what is left of
it is red tape. For anything we know to the
contrary the executive mean well, and are inno-
cent of any deliberate unfairness to Mr. FOWLER
or anybody else. If he had fulfilled the conditions
it is quite possible they would have been glad to
have given him the priz. Not having completely
fulfilled them, " a miss was as good as a mile,"
and Mr. FOWLER was to them a nonentity, like
the other competitors. What had they to do
with his anxious labour and exhaustive expendi-
ture throughout six long years ? That was his
look-out, not theirs. What public body nowadays
feels bound to encourage the meritorious inventor?
He was lucky to have the chance of winning sol
large a prize, and securing the advantages likely to
flow from it. We don't say the Executive
reasoned thus—we question if they gave the mat-
ter
further thought. They but carried out " the
"stern." They followed, if unconsciously, the
example of Government, and societies having
kindred objects
even be urged it, to their own. It may
with what trut their favour—we cannot say
11--they never dreansed of Mr.
FowLEn's beingmr
porbobveedoef
son t
his inventionno
rof taking
advantage under
the
osfu i m ech cobbery to their profit and his
pretence
of
hurt. They did not daily with him, they did
not dispute his rights or set others to question
them, they did not weary him
with obstructions
until his heart was well nigh broke., All they
did was to look at his invention, reject it, and
forget him. Pity, say we, so much can b., said
in way of palliation of so grievous an error Pity
the Royal Agricultural Society followed the
example of other and some more influential
bodies so far. Pity, above all, public feeling is
not so outraged by the neglect thus shown to
inventors as not to make the ranker and grosser
injustice hitherto dealt them as uus.afE, as it is
unwise. But recognising the want of ordinary
principle, the systematic and flagrant vie ration of
the common decencies of morality, in dealing
with merit which obtain in some of our C.lAum-