The Feliciana Democrat., 1856-02-02
a GLIMPSE OF TRUTH.

In the November number of the North
British Review, there il an article vindica-
ting, or rather cxculpating the Americans,
for their indifference to the European
struggle. The entire article is character
lied by remarkable frankncss. boldncss.
and independence, and is well worthy of
being read, even by Englishm IN themselves
who seem singularly indisposcd to regard
the real merits upon which the war with
Russia is based. Tho writer docs not he
state to tear aside the nimsy veil OF diplo-
macy which has been thrown around the
war for the purpose of rendering it popr-
lar with the masses, and to expose with n
free hand the motives which have actuatcd
the British government. lie denies that
the war is war of patriots, or that it is
intended to enlarge the area of freedom,
and views it as war for the maintenance
of the stairs quo. lie shows that the gov
crnmcnt, even when driven to the cytrcmi-
ty of declaring war, were most careful to
proclaim that it was undertaking it for the
sole object of compelling Russia to main
tain the faith of treaties, and to ccascaat-
tempting TO disturb existing arrangements.
1t was n war for the preservation of that
hoary solccism of statesmen, the balance OF
power, not war for the benefit of freedom
or the assistance of the oppressed national
tiles.
In accordance with those principles, the
British ministry have constantly and systc-
matically discouraged the aspirations OF
European patriots-havc refused to enter
tain the idea of liberating Poland, and so
far from eyincng the smallest sympathy for
Hungary and Italy, groaning as they do
beneath the hoof of Austrian tyranny, have
unvaryingly sought to secure the co opera,
tion Of that sanguinary, pcrfdious, and de-
spotic power. The reviewer demonstrate;
conclusivcly these positions citing the Off
cial language of proclamations and proto
coils, and proving that even yet the views
of the British government have undergone
no material change. He censurcs this pol
icy in very plain terms of reprobatiou, but
while he laments it as injudicious, iniqui
tous, and hostile to the spirit and ardent
wishes of the people, he docs not seem te
propose remedy. In fact, he stops at tho
very Threshold Of truth and fit of timid
ity scizcs him at the very moment when he
should pursue his propositions to their lc
gtimate and inevitable deductions. He
goes no further than to counsel the dismis
sal of the status quo theory, and the decla
ration by the allies of determination, il
circumstances should render it desirable
to countcnancc such notifications of terri
toral arrangements as may seem consonan
to justice, and more fitted to secure pcrma
nent peace. This is feeble conclusion tc
a vigorous argument. We must not for
got however, to add. that the reviewer
thinks that the Ciimca must on no condi
tion be restored to Russia and that hel
trans Caucasian cenqucsts must be wrestec
from her both of which events being more
infinitely IN posse than in esse, may be lool,
ed upon as decidedly Pickwckian and am
b1ignons, aud dependent upon remote and
doubtful contingencies.
Nevertheless the drift of the article de
monstrates that the English begin to dis