The recognition question in Europe.
letter from Mr Mason--opinion of the Paris "Patrie"A ‘"recognition"’ meeting was hold at Staleybridge, England, by the rate payers of the town. At this meeting the speakers endeavored to pass a resolution declaring that the sufferings of the British operatives were caused by the action of the Union government in continuing to make war; but the tradesmen and spinners present rejected the proposition, and resolved that their misery was produced ‘"by the existence of a rebellion against the American Constitution."’ A letter was read from Hon. J. M. Mason, our Commissioner at London, of which the following is an extract: I think I may confidently assume as the public judgment of Europe, that the separation of these States from the late United States is final and forever, and that in no possible contingency — even could the war be continued to their extermination — can they ever be restored to the repudiated Union. Under such circumstances, how far it may be deemed incumbent by other governments publicly to acknowledge the existing fact of such final separation, and thus to recognize the new power, is for those governments to determine. Fortunately for us, our people have shown themselves not only self-reliant, but worthy of that reliance. We have fought our battles unaided and alone, and, until recently, uncheered by the nations looking on. For the future we have no fears, nor would the recognition to which you refer be of any value to us, except so far as it might tend to bring the war to a close--a war to be waged henceforward hopelessly by our enemy, and at which humanity shudders. In reply to your inquiry as to what effect recognition of our independence would have towards putting an end to the war, I have only to say it would at once and forever dispel all delusion on the subject in the United States. So long as it is with-held by Europe it is taken as an admission in America that in European judgment there may yet be a restoration of the broken Union, and to that extent our adversaries may be encouraged to persevere. That I am warranted in speaking of this as a delusion, I may appeal to the verdict of every intelligent Englishman. Again: you are aware that the war was commenced and has been prosecuted for the purpose of putting down an alleged rebellion. Our recognition by the European Powers would be the decree of enlightened, impartial and able observers that a rebellion — if one ever existed — had been brought to an end, and there stood in place of it, as acknowledged by them, a separate, sovereign and independent State, the equal of any in the line of empire. It is not in the experience of the world that a war as disastrous in its results to those now waging it against the Confederate States, when they were made to understand that it was no longer conducted against alleged rebels in arms but against an acknowledged equal political power, could long be maintained. The Paris Patric, of the 4th inst., says: ‘ Dispatches from New York have announced that Messrs. Mason and Slidell, envoys from the Confederate States to London and Paris, have been recalled. Without denying that such a resolution might have been discussed in the councils of the Government of Richmond, or that it has been at least asked whether it would not be proper to request the Southern agents to henceforth abstain from taking any steps with M. Thouvenel and Earl Russell, we have reason to know that Messrs. Mason and Slidell have not neither to received any official communication on the subject. We moreover learn from London, on good authority, that there is nothing but what is very probable in the question of the recognition being immediately brought on the tapis, and solved, in accord with France, in the sense of faits accomplis. ’
