The question of intervention.
It was rightly remarked in this paper yesterday morning that the details of the foreign news by the Arable, with dates to the 14th June, were much more important than the telegraphic summary published by us on Monday led us to suppose.
The New York
Herald confesses this.
The language of
Sir James Walsh and of
Mr. Gregory, in debate in the House of Commons, was singularly pointed and energetic, and Lord Palmerston, in concluding his own denunciation of
Butler's infamous proclamation, expressly approved the sentiments and language uttered by those two speakers.
Mr. Gregory concluded with this remarkable sentence:
‘
"He did not appeal to his honorable friend, the Under
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to reply to this question,
but he did ask the Prime Minister of England if he was prepared to do that which he was convinced the
Ruler of brave and chivalrous France would do, if he had not already done it — namely, to protest against this the greatest outrage which had been perpetrated against decency in the age in which we lived."
’
Mr. Gregory is a sincere sympathizer with the Southern Confederacy, and a very able and influential member of Parliament.
The compliment which he pays incidentally to
France is significant.
Is not this compliment elicited by some knowledge the honorable member had relative to the disposition of the
Emperor generally upon American affairs?
A disposition consonant with his own sympathies?
The manner of its introduction makes the compliment all the more striking.
The idea is strengthened by the tenor of several editorials of leading journals of
Paris and
London; the former, (very probably with Government assent,) urging intervention, and the latter favoring it earnestly, but advising, for prudential considerations, that
France lead in the matter.
The leading one of these prudential considerations being the alleged greater popularity of the
Emperor and
France with the
United States than Her Majesty's Government.
The
Times suggests that the Czar of
Russia united with the
Emperor in the offer of mediation.
The
Times shows that
England will back the
Emperor in whatever he may do. It says: ‘"All that we can now say has already been said by our politicians and by the press.
The speeches of two or three
Cabinet Ministers, and the too well known opinions of almost every man of note in either
House,
are equivalent to anything that the French Emperor can disclose to the Americans by a formal offer of mediation."’
We adverted a day or two since to the remarks of both Lord Palmerston and Earl Russell, that there was no intention of her Majesty's Government ‘"at present"’ to intervene, thus plainly intimating that the time may soon come when
England will feel called on to intervene.
That time is undoubtedly when the
Confederacy shall give that test of ‘"force and consistency"’ which, in the estimation of the
British Government, will afford the proof of nationality.
The
Times is of opinion that this has already been given, and it declares that ‘"we are approaching a time
when a more important question even than that of an offer of mediation may have to be considered by England and France."’ What is that but an Armed intervention?
Sir J. Walsh seems to be at least of opinion that the Southern Confederacy has given the proof of ‘"
consistency,"’ if not of ‘"
force,"’ sufficient for nationality.
He declared in his speech that ‘"all accounts agreed in stating that wherever the
Northern armies penetrated into the
South there was yet no evidence of the existence of any party, or fraction of a party, or of any individual, scarcely, who entertained in the
Secessionist States other feelings than those of the most determined hostility to the
Northern States of
America.
It would appear that such a feeling was universal."’
Butler's infamous order afforded the occasion for the latest demonstration in
England; but it was evident that the
British public, Parliament, press, and people, were ripe for it. The demonstration from
France was not stimulated by the indignation that document naturally excites wherever it is read.
The ‘"infamous"’ paper had not reached
Paris at last dates.
We shall see the deep damnation of it in
England re-echoed by ‘"brave and chivalrous"’
France, as soon as it crosses the channel.
It is new very clear that both
France and
England are inclined to mediate.
The
London journals would suggest the idea that the
Emperor would likely be put forward with the approbation of
England.
The
Paris Patric states that negotiations were pending in
London for the joint intervention of the two powers.
The
Paris correspondent of the New York
Herald makes the statement that
France is to take the lead, with the pledge of the moral and physical support of
England; and that the basis of the intervention is to be, ‘"if not separation as a
sinc qua non, at least a decision of the question by the votes of the people of the
Southern States."’ Each State to determine for itself whether it will join the
South or the
North, and that to carry out this arrangement an armistice should take place for six months. Should the proposition be declined by the
North, the same authority states that the Southern Confederacy will be immediately acknowledged by
France and
England, who will consider ‘"what further action may be necessary to take in the premises;"’ i. e., whether there shall be
armed intervention or not.
The series of brilliant victories for the
Southern arms near
Richmond will, we doubt not, settle the question of intervention, should it not be determined on before they are known in
England and
France.
Both kingdoms are ready and are only awaiting — if they are indeed waiting at all — the occasion, and these glorious victories will furnish that beyond all question.
