The Sun.
London, England, 1858-08-27 00:00:00

THE SUN.

FRIDAY, AUGUST 27, 1858.

Count PIRSIGNY now regards the relative position
of England and France in a much clearer point of
view than when making the celebrated speech which
cost him his appointment as Ambassador to the
Court of St James's. We do not believe that he then
expressed his own opinions, but rather spoke in ac-
cordance with instructions from head-quarters. He
was to well acquainted with England and the Eng-
lish, knew too well the peculiarities of our national
character, to suppose that threats or blustering
would produce the desired effect. He had resided
amongst us as a refugee, had enjoyed that
hospitality against which Count DE MORNY
had railed, which Count WALEwsm required
to be abolished, and the French colonels desired to
be permitted to uproot et amis. He was well
aware that England would expend her last man and
her last shilling before she would abandon the un-
fortunate exiles who sought a sanctuary on her
shores. He knew that he was tossed on the horns
of a dilemma, that he should offend either the Eng-
lish people or the French Government, and he
selected the former as the lesser evil of the two. It
was ill both for Lord PALMERSTON and himself
that he harked in with the French cry of the
moment. It upset the Government of the
former and consigned him to private life, probably
for the remainder of his existence, and it

deprived the latter of his snug quarters
at Albert-gate, and the liberal means supplied to
maintain the dignity of the representative of the
EMPEROR. We believe, however, that M. DE PER-
SIGNY was the victim of circumstances; that no
French statesman more fully appreciated the value
of the English alliance, or understood the dangerou-1
nature of the course adopted than himself; and it was
with profound regret that the English people were
compelled to acquiesce in the propriety of his retire-
meat from the exalted station he had previously
occupied with so much credit to himself and advan-
tage to his country.
He has now come forward handsomely to make
the oinentle honorable, and to bear his willing and un-
exceptionable testimony, not only to the value of the
French and English alliance, but to the healthy and
honourable feeling of the English people, and the
manner in which they were led to modify their
views. He acknowledges the coldness that sprung up
—a coldness that might have led to very fiery results.
But he very sensibly remarks—" It is a fact, gentle
men, that the interests of the two peoples are at
present so closely connected that it would be diffi-
cult, even for the blindest passions, to cause a com-
plete rupture between them, Th:s communion of
interests has, in fact, become such, that were London
or Paris to be burnt to-morrow, the two countries
would mutually have to suffer immense commercial
losses. Whilst a similar catastrophe visiting Berlin,
Vienna, or St. Petersburg,, would only excite our
commiseration ; in London, on the contrary, such a
calamity would strike almost as heavy a blow at our
interests as if Paris itself were destroyed. Now,
when two nations are so intimately bound up toge-
ther, they are evidently destined become even
more closely united than they are at present."
This is true wisdom. Mutual interest will cement
and consolidate friendship, and we shall not feel dis-
posed to quarrel with those with whom we carry on
profitable dealings.
But there are other points on which France may
desire to cultivate and maintain friendship, and
which M. DE PERSIGNY clearly and distinctly
explained. He said, " Let us then first examine
what advantages France may reap from her alliance
with England. With England, we are masters of
the seas, and therefore have no aggression to appre-
hend on our frontiers. No coalition can ever be
formed against us, and the peace of Europe
is 'assured as long as we have England for an ally.
Our country, therefore, may give its undivided atten
tion to the development of its internal resources, free
frcurn any anxiety, and complete the consolidation of
its institutions without any apprehension. Our ma-
tei'ial rivality with England ceased when she threw
op en her immense colonies to our commerce as well
as to her own ; it will not be her fault if, by adher-
in; to our present system of high-priced production,
we! show ourselves incapable of availing ourselves
of the advantages within our reach." This
is so strikingly correct that it requires no
argu meats to establish the accuracy of statements
that carry conviction with them. Nor is the inte-
rest of England less obvious. He puts the matter
in a very striking point of view when he says—" In
18 14 and 1815 she succeeded in conquering the colo-
ni:s1 and maritime supremacy which formed the ob-
ject of her desires, and to which she seemed as it
VIE we predestined by her insular position, and by the
natural tastes of her inhabitants. That supremacy
she. now enjoys without dispute, and she confesses
that in the case of a new conflict with us, even
if (which GOD forbid!) the fate of battles bad fresh
disasters in store for France, the only result
for her would, be to retain possession of what
Eh e is now mistress, that is, her maritime and
colonial supremacy. England would, therefore, have
everything to lose and nothing to gain by a war
with France. By a complete transformation of her
interests the situation of England at the present day
may be said to be this • that her desire to remain on
friendly terms with Franceequ.als her
h
is tostility to-
he desire
wards us forty years ag
ite
minim
o. S), indeed,
o
of England not to disconnect fter interests fr
m
own, that in two grave circumstances on
u-leteriningur
she coo-
cue
to join us in making war, and then p
sulted our position rather than her own.
These are important truths that should be under-
stood by every straightforward and honourable
man in both countries. It is for the benefit
of humanity, the progress of civilisation, and
the welfare and happiness of mankind, that
France and England should remain united—
that the entente cordiale between the nations should
not be lessened by any unfortunate betiserie on either
side. Such, however, did occur, in consequence of
what. M. de PERSIGNY terms " a series of misunder-
standings on both sides of the Channel." But his
own statements do not quite establish the conclusion
as to there being faults on both:sides. He admits that
" On the receipt of the intelligence of the attempt of
January 14th, England was unanimous in branding
it as a hateful crime. At that period the real Eng-