The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-06-18
Lord Stanley and the Luxem bOurg
Treaty.

From The Times.
Whatever prestige Lord Stanley may have
gained for his party in his administration of
foreign affairs, has not been won, and is not
likely to be held, for nothing.
The telegraph announced that young
representative Whig, in the person of Mr..
Labouchere, had been put forward to question
the Foreign Secretary formally, in accordance
with parliamentary rule, as to the nature and
extent of the engagement by which England
had become bound to uphold the settlement
of the London Conference. Mr.. Labouchere's
instructions from the leaders of his party
seem to have inspired him with unusual
denunciatOry power for one so young. Lord
Stanley's course in the Conference had ex-
hibited ''no evidence of craftsmanship" His
rashness had made active intervention in GER
tain eventualities a necessity, And in the next
European war Lord Stanley's participation in
the Conference would be found to involve
England the dispute.
1t needs no very great power of insight into
party political motives to see that Lord Stan
ley is a far greater stumblng-blOck to the
traditional Wings than Mr.. Disraeli-with his
facility in the role of Reformer-or the rest
of the Tory Party put together. The Foreign
Minister was independent enough to assent to
the reopening of the question of the Alabama
and other claims after Lord Russell and Lord
Clarendon had shut off discussion. He found
a way to steer clear of the German muddle,
after the very utmost had been done by his
Wing predecessors to drag England into the
quarrel. His neutral course in dealing with
the Cretan appeal, and the Eastern question
generally, has at least redounded so far to his
credit that the Queens Government is to-day
as free to 60 into frank and friendly confer
ence with Russia, France and Austria, as if
the insurrection in the Archipelago and the
troubles in Roumania had not even had an
existence.
With equal discretion, quarrel has been
avoided, where there was a fair chance of
quarrel, with Spain. And the mischief-lool1-
ing at it from a Wing Party standpoint-is
that the country begins to believe that the
very reverse of all this conciliatory temper
and action would not only have been possible,
but almost certain, under Russell or Claren-
don administration.
Admitting, however, that Lord Stanley's
negative successes should naturally awaken
more or less jealousy, one may fairly wonder
that the position assumed by England in the
London Conference should form the basis of
party assault, either by the skirmishers or
the chiefs of the Whig ranks. But in party
warfare, ordinary laws and rules are easily
dispensed with. For thirty years England
has held no such influence in continental poll
tics as that which Lord Stanley won for her
at the London Conference. Such influence
Wing ministers have sought eagerly and per-
sistently to gain-not in pacific and friendly
conference, but by such loud and angry pro-
testations as Lord Russell INDUCED in pro-
miscuously before the spolation of Denmark.
1t is doubtless true as Lord Stanley's assail-
ants aver, that the whistle may have to be
paid for some day. But it is too late now to
raise the question of cost. If the disposition
to be made of Luxembourg was nothing to
England, it was competent for Parliament to
declare itself against the Peace Conference
before it was held, or at least to forbid the
Foreign Minister from taking part in its de-
iberatiOns. No such opposition was heard Of,
until the Minister announced to the Commons
that basis of peace had been agreed upon.
Thenceforth, the whole thing resolved itself,
in the Whig mind, into great party achieve
ment-to disparage which has now become
party duty-very feebly performed thus
far, as we should judge from Mr.. Labouchere S
effort.