The Sun.
London, England, 1866-05-04 00:00:00

4

PRICE.... 4d.
STAMPED sd.

Powers, war between Austria and Italy, would be
absolutely impossible. Whose fault is it, then,
that the word is not spoken ' • whom are we to
blame for the lamentable fact that the nations
of central Europe, without hindrance or remon-
strance from without, are about to cut each
other's throats in a foolish quarrel which results
from their own wrongdoing ? Russia is on
such close terms of alliance with Prussia and Aus-
tria, her prosperity and her very career are so in-
volved in . and interlaced with the fortunes of her
quondam friends of the Holy Alliance, that we can-
not believe that she has been backward in proposing
mediation. Dynastically linked with one Power,
sympathetically with the other, interested tradition-
ally in the well-being of ,
gGermany, England has
before her the praspeemL
Lord a r I
t of
wr. a great commercial loss
from
which
i must
h eerns
casesue
we remember that he is an Eungssllie'
d. him Englishman,
i pa
an ea
avd
ne
his wa and
do not
unpatriotic. We cannot
suppose
so blind both
to interest and duty as not to
this country
mostlt is ear
not t o
n es t.
to strangle this conflict in its
be
supposed for a moment that tchr
alone the risk of war by intervesntei
un n ryn
Gc oeur lmd
arnuyn.
Our ardour for peace would not lead us to such
lengths as that. But, in combining
w •
in h France
and rance
it
and Russia in putting a veto upon war,
on a reference to a European congress of the insisting
mootedblo
question which it is proposed to decide by
a bloody
arbitrament, doing hery
arbitrament, England would be simply
duty as a great Power in the world. We may take
it for granted that neither England nor Russia
would object to such combined mediation. We may
even presume that both have urged it. While this
mediation seemed still possible there was an alter-
- 'On the onifampA, peace might
have been restored, armaments reduced ; Austria,
Prussia, and Italy might have shaken hands across
their frontiers; all pending questions might have
been settled without shedding a drop of blood ;
everything finally arranged without an appeal to
arms. On the other hand, there would be a colli-
sion compared to which railway accidents, earth-
quakes, volcanoes—all possible commotions, convul-
sions, catastrophes, and slaughters, are but fleabites.
A shock of two armies, each of half -a-million of living,
thinking, intelligent, and fighting beings, against
another army of three-quarters of a million of the
same trenches and battlefields heaped with wounded
and slain, the plains of Saxony, Silesia, and Venetia
manured with human carcasses, the whole green
centre of Europe running with blood, nations deci-
, mated, empires and kingdoms dismembered, old
landmarks obliterated, and the map of the world re-
modelled ; what once was orderly involved in inex-
tricable chaos, the active power of a generation
emasculated and unproductive, and traditions of
hatred and honour bequeathed to posterity. Whose
fault is it that the Powers who have the issue of all
this practically in their hands have not chosen the
better part, but consented to suffer all this mischief
to brew undisturbed ? We should be sorry to say
that it was altogether the fault, of France, but we
must nevertheless draw attention to the exposition
of French policy by the Minister of the Interior in
the Corps Legislatif yesterday. The speech of M.
Rouher certainly goes far to justify the imputations
which have been cast on this policy, which has been
accused of inclining to this absolute neutrality, of
which such boast is made, simply because France is
not averse to war in Germany, but expects to reap
some positive benefit out of the wreck which it will
make. M. Rouher deprecated a discussion on the
German question, and objected to the criticisms
made on the conduct of Prussia by M. Thiers and
M. Jules Favre as likely to cause inconvenience and
embarrassment in the present position of affairs.
We are not informed in the telegraphic summary
what efforts were specified by M. Rouher as having
been made by his Government towards the main-
tenance of peace. They were probably limited to
the writing of letters containing an abundance of
good advice. Such as they were, they were
" limited," says M. Rouher, " by a firm resolve not
to contract any obligation, and to maintain liberty
of action in questions which, after all, did not
affect her honour, her dignity, and her interests."
The country of Louisi XIV. and Napoleon must be
sadly changed when it can protest that such a
convention as that which is impending on its border
concerns it so little. M. Rouher takes his stand,
it seems, on an " honest neutrality," of which we
can only say that we trust the event will justify the
adjective applied to it. France, we are told, is de-
termined " to profit by her liberty of action," an
expression which would have an ominous sound
were it not qualified by the words which follow—
only to maintain the power, security, and liberty
of France against every attack." As no one con-
templates such an attack, the words which M.
Rouber has uttered in so oracular a manner are
altogether without meaning, and were probably
meant to be so. No such declaration of disinte-
restedness and honesty has been made by either
England or Russia. The French Government is at
all events the first to avow that it has made, and
will make, no earnest or decided effort to avert war
in Europe. It is true it has hastened to assure Italy
that it is " thoroughly determined to throw upon
her all the perils and risks of any attack she may
make upon Austria." France is adding to her army,
and massing her legions in the south, but it is not
to help Italy, only to provide against eventualities.
The army of thd south is to protect " the power,
security, and liberty of France." France will not
help Italy, but Italy " is unfettered in her resolu-
tions," and may seek for further aggrandisement in
another alliance. To the alarming news that now
reaches us from every side—Prussia and Austria
simultaneously refusing to disarm, a general war
fever and a new loan in Italy—this manifesto of the
French Government adds a fresh element of dis-
quietude. We could wish, in the interests of peace,
that the language of M. Rouher had been less am-
biguous and less liable to misconstruction.

~~

NEWSPAPER

f r.~ p~
:f. ~.

---