TOPICS OF TIIE DAY.
ANGERS BREWING BETWEEN FRANCE' AND ENGLAND. ITit3 not to be concealed that an estrangement between the Govern- ments of France and England has taken place. The confiding. friendliness of the two countries, which had been growing up of late years, is checked; proclaim that the " en- tente cordiale" is broken ' • the same impression is confessed with regret by the first and best men in France ; and many persons of influence in Parisian circles lament, prospectively, the loss of that social intercourse with their English compeers which was doing so much good. This is a deplorable change, and great is the fault ofthose who have brought it about- We are aware that the British. Government is not without a case to allege against the other side-in the affair of the Montpen- sier marriage. The accusation stands something in this way. The " entente cordiale," so formally proclaimed by the French King, was accepted by. the Government and people of this country in the most perfect good faith.; and when the young Queen Victoria visited the aged Monarch with friendly fami- liarity and marks- of an almost filial regard, her doing so was viewed with hearty approbation _by -all her subjects. The sway of good sense appeared to have reached the royal classes of society. King Louis Philippe was frank in his demeanour, paternal in the venerable audacity of his blandishments; his respectable Queen Amelia was induced to assist at the re- ception of Queen Victoria ; the widowed. Dutchess of Orleans emerged from the seclusion of her grief ; and the other ladies of the-family contributed to impart to the intercourse an air of do- mestic freedom that professed to be full of the kindliest feeling and devoid of all reserve: Plans and projects were touehed.upon : this very Montpensier affair came upon the carpet. Who could suspect that all this engaging ingenuousness on the part of King. Ulysses Philippe was only acting? Who can- doubt that. Queen Victoria was -indignant when she learned that. her- fatherly host had befooled and tricked her ?
.Perhaps, indeed, it.was not all acting. Cunning of the highest kind involves much that is genuine amid its pretences: Louis Philippe isreally goodnatured man, really sensible, really dis- posed-to hearty alliance; though he could not withstand the bait ofe good match.
Many believe him to be actuated by purely mercenary mo- tives : but who knows what passes- in the deep recesses_ of his mind? We suspect that far beyond any mercenary motive lies the ordinary dynastic ambition. He strives to strengthen the dynasty of the Barricades by allying it with the:older dynasties. The project does small credit to his astuteness. What he gains in-an apparent increase of hold on the throne by extending- his royal connexions, he loses in the influence which is his real strength. To ally his line with the decaying dynasties of En. rope, is to link_the fate of his family with a class which is on the decline; whereas the very tenure of his• occupancy depends on his alliance with the rising institutions and influences of limited monarchy. If France is to have eKing, of dynastic .pretensions, why--not have aMenry the Fifth rather than a Louis Philippe ? For him. to cancel the revolution of July, is to strike the. "con- sideration " out-of his bond, and to vitiate his own lease.
But the badness of his 13osition is no set-off against the badness of the position to which our official representatives- retreated. Quite the reverse. The better our case, the more easy and de- sirable-was it to take up a true position. The British Govern- ment made a blunder in attempting to stand upon the old treaty of_Utrecht : that treaty affords no sound locus staiuli ; it possesses no legal force to,prevent the marriage in question; it was practi- cally untenable. If the British Government desired to frustrate Louis Philippe's match, that end might have been attained in a xnuohaurer way, by proclaiming.the project, discussing it in the face of Europe, and defeating intrigue by transparent openness. Had that been. done, the strongly expressed opinion of the Spanish, possibly of the French people, and of the Governments of other European states, might have induced King Louis Phi- lippe to abandon his game. We recognize distinctly the untoward results that may flow from impaired cordiality between the Courts of St. James's and the Tuileries : but the worst of those consequences can hardly happen without the active participation of the. British Ministers. In.itself, the Montpensier match presents nothing that need much shock. us. The chance that a breach of an obsolescent treaty may accrue is very remote; the danger of any inordinate increase to French power through a " footing " in Spain is more than pro- blematical. The marriage really concerns the people of France, England, or. Spain, only in a very slight.degree. Its worst inci- dent is, that it is a cause of offence to high personages and to diplematists. But if the officials suffer their displeasure to entail deplorable consequences upon the nations, they will not- escape a fearful responsibility by pleading the misconduct of Louis Philippe. Fir graver will be their own misconduct.
, And the course imputed to them now is obnoxious to very grave suspicions. The time is come for speaking out. Their attitude is dangerous to the stability of peace. Not that war is immediately imminent ; but the progress of two such neighbours as France and England must always be towards closer peace or towards contest, and we see that the direction in which they have moved has been reversed. The nation. should know, before it be too ,late for correction, what its public servants have done and are doing. When satisfied that war is necessary for the interest ands honour of the nation, the British people will always supportits- rulersin war. But there has as yet been no aggression except upon the self-importance of diplomatists; and the English people- will not consent to war merely to point the periods of scolding• despatches, or back absurd and offensive demands. Nor woud a merely negative course on the part of our Ministers-- satisfy expectation : they will be required to show that they have- really done their best to preserve peace. When the most deplorable of visitations is brought upon the country, it will not suffice for our own Government to turn round and exclaim, " Thou must not say that I did it-." It is not enough for the guardian to show that he is not murdering his ward : what is he doing to turn• away danger ? We are told that King Louis Philippe has effected a match for- his son which endangers the peace of Europe : how is it that we hear of the affair and of its terrible contingency-so late that no- thing can be done to stop it What were our Ministers, the late , Ministers as well as the present, about in the interval ? what aid: did they invoke ? what made them neglect the most effectual appeal of all, the public opinion of Europe? When we are told that all this mischief must flow from the wedding, it looks very like nonsense, or gross misconduct on the part of-our diplomattstz- Grant the utmost turpitude in the French King's behaviour, and, our managers do not escape the presumption of gross bungling in suffering such dangers to attend an event so paltry. Has diplo- macy made no advance since a Helen was the origin of a Trojan war ? Cannot our well-paid statesmen perform their business better than that?
We are told that the alliance between France and England is- effectually broken. If so, it is not merely the fault of the French King and his Ministers. Louis Philippe -may be disposed to draw. back from an- alliance which- he has-not duly honoured ; but our representatives ought to know how to assume a position so just- and so tranquil as to neutralize intrigue, or the humours which-. intrigue may make its tools. With the altered political condition of states, we say, diplomacy has acquired an altered function ;, which is now, to find out a ground of common intelligence- between any peoples parties to a question in dispute. We• fear that our diplomatists are at this moment neglecting that newer and higher part of their vocation, which was recog- nized and honuured by their predecessors in office. In con- ducting disputes with other countries, Sir Robert Peel's Cabinet. manifested no disposition to offend, but adhered to the plain merits• and justice of the case. Unless he has been greatly misrepre,- sented by the published accounts of his despatches, Lord Pal- merston has returned to the litigious, attacking, taunting style, that distinguished his correspondence down to 1841 : and, by an unfortunate coincidence, so clOse as to look like more than the effect of chance, the English Ministerial journals are backing the- Foreign Secretary's aggressive tactics. The whole course of the compositions imputed to the Viscountrand reflected-by his partisans in the press, is one of incrimination against persons in France, whose misconduct even would not warrant diplomatists in taking- so truly false a course as one calculated to drive powerful ante-- gonists to desperation. The conduct of true diplomacy is the very opposite of all this. It would foster, not misunderstanding, but better understanding; a phrase, synonymous with friendliness, which shows how the removal of misconception is felt also to remove enmity. Much of the misunderstanding between all countries lies in reciprocal. misconceptions of ideas and language ; and true diplomacy would. clear up those obscurities, calmly extracting the truth even out of blundering reproach. For instance, La Presse charges Eno-- land with the odious policy of keeping European states unsettled' and doubtful of the future. It is true, that the traditional notion of maintaining a "balance of power," in former times, induced' England to prevent decisive results : but she has grown wiser ; and, instead of setting London journals to rail against France it would much more conduce to the objects of true diplomacy, if the- reproach were made the occasion, as it might justly be, of show- ing that England has corrected her policy—that the country which restored Louis the Eighteenth recognized the Revolution of 1830.
It is for the British public to consider whether it wishes a war- about this Montpensier marriage. It behoves that public, so slow in entertaining questions of foreign affairs, to know that this., question is becoming one no longer of foreign politics, but of the safety and peace of the country. It is to be hoped that the more discreet members of the Cabinet will recollect that there are dayit, of reckoning, and that, though the declaration of peace or war hes . with the Crown, the Ministers who carry out the royal will are, responsible to the nation.
Previous page
