The Press. — 1858-12-25 (London, England)

THE PRESS, DECEMBER 25, 1858.  Emperor. In the Saturday Review I read an article in which they term the Emperor a liar, a perjurer, and a blood-stained murderer. That Is pretty good in its way, being friends with the French. When people use such violent language they make a great mistake, and, instead of being wise, it is very foolish, because I believe our alliance with France is of the greatest importance."  In this belief Mr. STURT is certainly not alone. Indeed, we suspect it would be difficult to pick out in all England two sane individuals entertaining an opposite opinion. The journals alluded to by the Hon. Member for Dorchester would certainly go with the crowd. Both are eloquent advocates of the alliance in question. Both concur in lamenting, as its sole defect, its possible fragility. And yet, incredible as it may seem, it is this very fragility which both, with their utmost efforts, strive to augment ! An inconsistency of this kind becomes matter of serious moment when those guilty of it take rank among the leading organs of the press. That the Times and the Saturday Review are unconscious of the risks incurred by their gross and reiterated attacks upon the Emperor of the FRENCH cannot for a moment be supposed. The elevation of LOUIS NAPOLEON to the Imperial throne is one of the most remarkable revolutions of modern days. Now, the journals alluded to would, we are convinced, feel greatly insulted by the supposition that their views on the Philosophy of History are not more profound than those which suggested to M. SCRIBE his clever farce Un verre Beau. What inextinguishable laughter would flash in "small pica" across the length and breadth of the land, were we to assert that the oracular Sibyls who lie perdu in the caverns of Printing-house-square and Southamptonstreet, W.C., can see no further into a revolution than Peter Bell did into a primrose ! At the same time, unless they acknowledge the fit of the cap, they must concede that between the existence of the Empire and the actual tendencies and sympathies of France a logical and genetic connection exists which, while it explains and justifies our position, vitiates and condemns theirs. Into the " philosophy," so to speak, of this connection we do not feel called upon to enter. The elements of durability may or may not be wanting to it. But when we recollect that the groundwork of France's political education—her past history—is a history in which everything tends as distinctively to pure, as our own past does to mixed monarchy, we cannot help thinking that the chances in favour of the Empire lie much deeper beneath the surface than its assailants would care to avow. Be this, however, as it may, we beg to submit that the journalist makes a flagrant and a fatal mistake when he confounds his office with that of the historian—when he builds up speculations upon the abstract and the possible, instead of practically dealing with the actual and the necessary. But the Saturday Review is too sharp not to be conscious of its own inconsequence, and too clever not to find a specious apology for it. In a recent number, it acquits itself of all responsibility by ingeniously arguing that, in strictness, the French alliance does not exist at all ! Treaties and signatures may satisfy the vulgar ; but, observes our clever and cantankerous contemporary, " there is a radical and fundamental contrariety " between the two people—a chasm which no " palaver can bridge over. What is wanting to " the French alliance is the idem relic atque idem " nolle, which is the only sound foundation of " mutual co-operation. In the sense which its " admirers attribute to it, we ',do not hesitate to " say that the French alliance at this moment " does not exist."  Now, the above strikes us as a fair specimen of that useful and amusing trick commonly. called " throwing dust into people's eyes." That the idem velle atque idem nolle is " the only sound foundation " of a sincere alliance no one will dispute ' • but that it is so in the sense lent it by the Saturday Review we doubt if any reasoning individual will allow. According to our contemporary, the idem velle atque idem ,wlle ought to imply the identity, not merely of international interests, but of national interests also. In order to secure " mutual co-operation," it does not suffice that our ally shall recognize a conformity of views between his foreign policy and our own. He must assimilate himself to us in his home policy also.