New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1864-06-01
ElnopEAn ronErECs.

There ore as yet 80 Wclcai. 20. t4ii i.' Ion
don Conference Las made any pTogrcs. in lnd-
ug solution of what is sill the mos, threaten
ing Of the European comqi'canon' tic Dan 70
German difficulty. TIE Oh .al AID ,cm.-
official papers OF the Great Power, contain
nothing that would fayorlhiy ilnprcs, public
opinion as the basis Of au acceptable mediation.
The English and French papers eenria.iy give
thcmrelyol up 10 gloomy anticipation. All lAc
Cabinets of the Grea, Powers aTc intriguing
against each other and oven Austria AID Prl-
sia, which apparently have thus flr gone had
in hand. are -aid to he secretly working against
each other
We 90 not attach great importance To any
particular reports; but upon one point, the
language of the oilicial ORGANS Of the European
Governments AMI the debates in the represent
alive assemblies leave no doubt. There l. STILL
as the formal DIES Doiofs fly calls il. ana,-
chy in European politics and this. anarchy j.,
increasing. Not a single one Of the Great Pow
crs has yet shown itself determined to stand
firmly upon a general princi lc in proposing
solution for this or any other European compii-
cation. Each one has certain territorial OF dy-
na>tic interests in view and 10 secure ils object
is willing 10 abandon any former alliance and TO
enter, without Hesitation, into any new comb!-
nation. Thus IL is by no means certain whether
important changes in the relations Of the En-
ropear Power may not yet be produced by the
London Conference.
The comparatively fankest explanation OF
the policy 10 De pursued in the solution of the
Danish question has been given by thc Govern
mcnt of France. II is the only one that a. least
processes general principle tor the solution of
international f,uds. Il has been repeatedly
announced iu recent documents OF the FaucI|
Government, and was again explicitly stated d.
NJ. Rouhcr in The Legislative Body, Oh the l2'h
of May, that France should always refuse toI
own consent, as they were in 1-lj. On tbs
principle the democratic party Of every Ear
pcan country ha, hitherto acted in is struggle
both against the absolute despotism Of their own
princes, and for the recovery of territory which
combinations of European Powers had, contrary
to the wish Of the people, guaranteed to foreign
rulers, rs in the Gaze Of Italy. Hitherto the
international law Of Europe has not recognized
the natural rights Of the people, but only the
obligatory power Of treaties; and every con-
cession which democracy has obtained, has
been by force Of insurrection. We can
predict, therefore, with the greatest conf
dence, that if the power Of the people should
continue to increase in Europe as it has done
Tor many years past tho peace of Europe will
either be constantly interrupted by protests
against international treaties which have been
concluded without the consent and even
against the express wishes of the people. or
the demands Of the people must be granted.
Treaties like those of 1915 and 1852
may enforce an armed peace for few years, but
the French Government is undoubtedly right
| If 1t presumes that these treaties will not last
for ever, and that to secure lasting peace, the
people ought to be consulted before they are
disposed of. The French Government has re-
ceived credit for its recent declaration from
many who have always been opposed to its
tortuous policy in other questions; and it
would gain still more friends, were it not
believed that Louis Napoleon would not hesitate
to violate his principles whenever he shall think
il for his interest to do so.
The confusion Of European politics is greatly
increased by the disagreement of the popular
parties of the several European countries on
international questions. This disagreement is,
in some instances, so radical as to prove clearly
that the mere success of democracy in Europe
at tho present iuncture would by no means