The Sun.
London, England, 1867-08-20 00:00:00

....—e--.
and prophecies are most abundant. From Salzburg
we learn that their Majesties held a conference,
which lasted more than hour. It is said that no
alliance will be concluded, as both Sovereigns are

peacefully disposed, and that only possible eventu-
alities will be discussed ; but this may mean any-

thing, as has often been shown before. At any rate
it is an established fact that this meeting has taken
place, and it is well for the balance of power in
Europe that it should have done so, for all that
tends to check the arrogance and curb the influ-
ence of Prussia is fortunate. It is well that the
Emperor NAPOLEON should have appeared in Ger-
many, where, for the last year or 81, the interests
of Prussia have been so much in the ascendant, be-
cause be is known to be both powerful and indepen-
dent, and if he chooses he can set all the objections
of Berlin councils at defiance. It is stated that the
Bavarian Council of Ministers have declared that
they are unwilling for the King of BAVARIA to visit
Salzburg, and Prince 110IIENLOIIE was hostile to the
plan, as it was against the interests of Germany.
The EMFEROR and EMPRESS were very well received
in every part of South Germany which they passed
through. No doubt this latter intelligence will be
most unfortunate to the authorities at Berlin, for

they would much rather keep all the game in their
own hands, and would infinitely have preferred that
the Emperor NAPOLEON should have remained at
home, or at least have bent his steps in another
direction.

We may expect from this period to meet with
many and various suggestions of all kinds relative
to the alliance between Austria and France, and
already one notable study on the subject has ap-
peared which well deserves attention and regard.
It is published in the New Fremden Blatt, a semi-
official organ of the Chancellor of the Empire,

Baron von BELTST, and it goes into the question in
a most comprehensive style and with much force of
expression. It commences by declaring that there
is no need of a Russo-Prussian alliance to incite an
accord between France and Austria. There are
other causes to bring about this work, foremost
among which may be mentioned the Treaty of
Prague. This is aptly described here as of
"an importance eminently European in its
It has exalted a Power in the
centre of Europe which was unknown there
since the great Emperors of Germany. How true
is the definition we thereupon meet with of the
actual state of things compared with what might
have been under happier auspices. It is true that
many affirmed that it was expedient to have a great
and powerful State in the middle of Europe ; but
then to carry out that idea the State in question
must have been animated with pacific views. Such
would have been the case had Germany been revived
with all her ancient notions of civilisation and peace ;
but " instead of a united Germany there rose a
great and powerful Prussia, which has thus become
a new danger for the- peace of Europe." This
admirably describes the true state of things, and
scatters to the winds that fallacy of the unity of
Germany, of which so many have heard, but which
so few have seen. Neither France nor Austria has
ever acquiesced in this, that Prussia should plant
her foot in Southern Germany, and yet she has
time after time tried to do so.
So much for the past, and respecting future
contingencies it is said that as soon as Prussia puts
forward these claims or pretensions that will, if
successful, destroy the independence of the Southern
States of Germany, Austria and France ought to
oppose her. It is asked in Prussia why France
should interfere with the Treaty of Prague, but
well-informed persons know well why she should
do so, and appreciate the importance and necessity
of so doing. It is asked here with justice if France
by her attitude did not help Prussia to go on
with the war of 1866, and was not the Prussian
Prime Minister at Biarritz offering Luxemburg to
France as the price of her " benevolent neutrality."
Those who have prated so glibly about the infalli.
bility of Prussia may now take heed to the argu-
ments here used and the suggestions here made.
" Had France," it is asked, " informed Italy that she
was unwilling for her to conquer Venetia through
Prussia, or had she placed a corps of observation at
Lille or atßesancon,would Prussia have been able even
with her needle-gun and her intellectual strength,
which we gladly admit, to send a single man to the
frontiers of Bohemia?" At that time no idea was
entertained of a Russo-Prussian alliance, and as
to the notion of the hatred existing between France
and Germany, in the discussion of which the Prus-
sian organs are so active, it is said that
it seems very doubtful if they are to pre-
fer Prussian hegemony to the Emperor
NAPOLEON'S protection upon the Rhenish
Confederation. It is said, in conclusion, that one
thing is certain, namely, that Austria and France
are obliged to keep a careful watch, since it is not
Germany, but Prussia, which has gained so much
power in the centre of Europe. " A wider deve-
lopment of Prussia would give them the right to
oppose that country in common. This would not
be an alliance against Germany, but one against
Prussia." The meaning of this is very ap-
parent throughout, and it is evident to all
who look at it impartially that there is truth
in the assertions here made. Who can say
that Prussia is not the beginning and end of all
power in Germany, even in those very places where
unanimity is said to reign, and where the inhabi-
tants rejoice in union with Prussia? Before long
we shall most probably see the end of all this make-
belief unity, for it has no strength or stability
whatever.

tenour."

The accounts which reach us from private sources
in the States reveal .a startling history respecting Mr.
STANTON'S downfall. It is stated that the crisis in
the relations between the PRESIDENT and his refrac-
tory Secretary were brought about by the discovery
of an extraordinary act on the part of Mr. STANTON.
It seems that when Mrs. SURRATT was tried and
sentenced to death the commissioners who tried her
accompanied their decision with a recommendation
to mercy, which was never forwarded. The recom-
mendation, that the PRESIDENT should commute
her sentence in consideration of her age and sex,
was attached to the other documents by a piece of
string or ribbon. Busy fingers untied this ribbon
and transmitted the papers, minus the recommenda-
tion, to the PRESIDENT, who had no choice but to
permit the law to take its course. Some surprise
was expressed at the time that, with thePREsiDENT's
known disposition to clemency, he had not modified
the sentence of the aged woman, of whose implica-
tion in the conspiracy very many stood in doubt.
We have now a very simple explanation of it—the

appeal for mercy never reached him, and it is not
surprising that under the circumstances he did not
choose to take upon himself the whole responsibility
of a reprieve. The matter was brought to light
during the late trial of SURRATT, the son of the
old lady. His counsel applied to the PRESIDENT
for leave to make use of the recommendation to
mercy in his defence. Mr. JOHNSON very naturally
asked, " What recommendation?" and on hearing
the particulars exclaimed that it was the first he
had heard of it. On getting the papers from the
War-office the appeal was found duly tied on to the
other documents, there being no longer any reason
to tamper with them. This, according to the authen-
ticated accounts, was the reason for the demand for