FRENCH VIEWS OF THE ANGLO-AMERICAN DIFFERENCES.

Lyttelton Times, Volume VI, Issue 368, 14 May 1856, Page 5

FRENCH VIEWS OF THE ANGLO-AMERICAN DIFFERENCES.

(From the "News of tie World," Feb. 17.)

The quarrel which Mr. President Pierce would seem bent upon fastening on England lias not passed unnoticed by the leading organs of parties in France. The Journal dcs Debats, the Constitutionnel, and tiie Siecle, have eac.i gone fully into the subject: and it is, assuredly, of importance to know that the three papers which represent the thrte greatest parries in France—the Monarchists, Imperialists, and Moderate Liberals—are agreed in pronouncing Mr-Presi-dent Pierce in the wrong. It is, at the same time, interesting to know that they are also agreed in opinou that war cannot happen, because they refuse to admit the supposition that the intelligent American people will allow themselves to be misled by the selfishness or blundering of the temporary head of their Republic. The same journals, so seldom in agreement with each other, concur in fixing upon slavery as the true cause of difference. The war party and the slave party are the same ; and should this party succeed in over-ruling the wishes of the people of the north, and force England to hostilities, we are assured that the sympathies of France would be with Great Britain. The Journal dcs Debuts is not at this moment in a particularly favourable mood towards England, yet so great is its avowed horror of slavery as to render all other considerations secondary to its abolition. The Siecle cries shame upon a professedly Republican country which lias not only deserted the cause of liberty in Europe, but would make war on the only people nho enjoy constitutional freedom, and that for the sake of strengthening their hands to rivet chains upon an unhappy race in their own rank. As regards the enlistment question, it is treated as a matter of astonishment that an apology as ample as honour can offer, and which between man and man could not be refused, should be rejected as insufiieienr. An individual who would spurn an houourabk.apology, would himself be spurned as an implacable brute ; while, as regards differences between nations, the principle is even more binding, because a nation cannot consent to humiliatio:l., and because rancorous vindictiveness would, if pushed to extremities, involve consequenences affecting the happiness of millions. The point of honour is so clearly against Mr. President Pierce as to induce the Constilutionncl to regard the enlistment dillioulty as kept over for the more sake of make-weight to be thrown in with the Clayton Uulwertreaty. Here again the same journal cannot understand why an offer of reference to arbitration should not be cheerfully

accepted. Such an offer is in accordance with usage, and a proof in itself of regard for equity. As Mr. Pierce is held to be clfarly wrong on the one point, and unjustifiable in refusing the offered arbitration with respect to the other, ail parties agree me acquitting England beforehand of the guilt of warif unhappily war there should be. The Siicls points to the allies which England would necessarily have in the slave population ; but such topics are not pleasant to have to consider. We must confess, however, that the views expressed by these leading journals of the French press upon the subject of the quarrel which the American President seems disposed to force upon us, possess, in our estimation, considerable value, and emanating as they do from sources, the perfect independence and disinterestedness of which cannot for a moment be doubted, we would feign hope that their weight and significance will not be lost upon Mr- President Pierce himself.