The Press. — London, England, 1853-06-18 00:00:00

JUNE 18, 1853. deny (and will the Piedmontese Ministers back the denial?) their cabals with secret societies. and their unceasing endeavours to keep up ill-will and to prevent the acceptance of the Emperor's clemency by those who would have been willing to avail themselves of it? Can they deny that they have boasted of their uncompromising hostility and the implaca bility of their hatred? All this is notorious ; and, if they have been the unscrupulous Tr turbators of the public peace, should all our m ai n be reserved for the Government which finds itself compelled to take up arms against such a sea of troubles" In the documents to which we have referred it is insisted that the natives of Austrian Lom bardy, having thrown off the allegiance of their native Sovereign and transferred it to the King of SARDINIA. are to be exempted front all the consequences of their former rebellion and of their present hostility ; and that their Loin bird property cannot be legally withheld or confiscated on their conviction of the crime of high treason against the person or government of the Emperor, of which, it is maintained, they can bo no longer guilty. This argument, we imagine, could not be maintained by any jmist beyond the Alps. But the Austrian Go vernment has a yet stronger ease. The exiles, with few exceptions, might immediately have returned to Lombardy after the Piedmoutese defeat in 1849, and permission to sell their property, with ample time to do so, was granted to those who were excluded by name; but neither party chose to avail themselves of the alternative, preferring to remain in a state of defiance to the Imperial Government, which they hoped to brave with impunity, while en joying all the dignity of misfortune and the pride of patriotism. The feelings of the Im perial Ministers have changed. Perhaps they have seen cause to regret the moderation of their first measures ; and the outbreak of the nth of February, contemptible as it was, ex hausted their slender stock of remaining patience. In this melancholy state of things it is deaply to be regretted that the good offices of En ;land are wholly unavailing. Our fiormer injudicious interference has lost us the confi de ice of both parties. The insurgents believed we betrayed them—the Governments are per sus led we countenanced rebellion. This blunder is not a new one. In Mr. Moones life and journals, recently published, lie quotes a remark of Lord LANSDOWNE on the revolutionary movements in Italy of 1821 : • The reputation of England," he observes, "on the Continent has sunk con " siderably with one party for having shown " an inclination to oppose them without being " (as they think) able to venture, and with the " other for having given them hopes of assist " ance and left them in the lurch."—Vol. 4, p. 151. If such was the opinion of this en lightened nobleman of the conduct of the Ministry of that day, with what feelings must he regard the conduct of the Cabinet of which he formed a part, in the year 1848, and of the noble Viscount, his colleague, at that time our Minister of Foreign Affairs! In our opinion the duty of this country was to preserve an exact neutrality, and neither countenance the rebels nor insult and irritate the Governments to whom we did not judge it prudent to exhibit at more active hostility. The subsequent protection of the rebels, when the contest was over, was highly impo litic, nor has it escaped its appropriate punishment. By encouraging, or, rather , Coln pelling, Turkey to break her ancient treaty with Austria for the mutual surrender of prisoners, we constrained that decrepid State to disgust its firmest ally and inflict an injury which was certain to be speedily avenged. In the recent events that have taken place at Constantinople, Russia, obviously, no longer calculated on the opposition of Austria. That passive but insuperable resistance to her ambitious designs she perceived clearly had been foronce overcome, and England deprived of an ally upon whose co-operation in (our Eastern policy we might always rely. We have no intention of constituting our selves the defenders and apologists of the Austrian Government. We believe it to have been flighted from its decorum as well as THE PRESS. irritated beyond its patience ; but our readers must not believe all the groundless charges of a hostile press. Forgiveness and ti►rbeartu u •e must be mutaid. The exiles cannot receive the palm of martyrdom and the rewards of submission. But the Government is only waiting to receive their overtures ; confisea dons have nowhere been decreed ; sevleie•xtrer times have occasionally been enforced ; and an inquiry into the conduct of the exile insti tuted, during which the revenues of his estate are withheld. In many eases an imme diate restitution has taken place upon submis sion, and in none does the sequestration affect the interests of the patriot's heir, or close the doors against his own repentance. The injustice and ill-treatment to which our travelling countrymen are exposed on the Con tinent is a proof of the dislike which our Government has inspired, and of the contempt into which it has fallen. In the foreign police offices insolent and sycophantic underlings think to curry favour with their official supe riors by showing disrespect to the natives of a. country with which it is believed their Govern ment is discontented; while underbred Eng lishmen hope for notoriety and praise by provoking a quarrel which they expect their Government at home to adopt. But there must soon be a truce to this petty hostility: at crisis is approaching that. must. unite all those who desire the preservation of peace. Our Ministers must endeavour to reconstruct the alliances which have so heed- lessly_ been broken ; and, by a timely change of conduct, we trust the country may yet be saved from the consequences of a disastrous and discreditable policy. THE BALLOT. EXCEPT in so far as an abstniet discussion may be enlivened by telling allusions to the events of the day, the Ballot question scampi ! ) , admits of novelty. Any one who had missed hearing the debate of Tuesday last might form a fair idea of its tenor by reading in Hansard " that Of 11438. Mr. 6110TE'S Speech an the one side, and those of Sir R. PEEL and Lord :lons RUSSELL on the other, contain pretty nearly all that can be said for and against secret voting. In this ease. as many More, the real argu ments, pro and con., lie in a nutshell. A single review, a single pamphlet, will hold them all ; and the vast volume to which the collected speeches of the last fourteen years on this subject would swell is stuffed mainly with idle repetitions, excuses for individual tergiversa tion, amusing personalities like those of the present) Sir R. PEE!., and cock-and-bull stories of landlord influence, or of intimidation by employers. '['he only change which has taken place is in the number of votes polled by the followers of Gaon: and BENTHAm. And Itert, we observe a very perceptible decrease since the question was first mooted. The subjoined list of divisions will verify our words : For Ballot. A gningt. !Mil —37 —lB —39 —42 —47 —49 —SO —sl —52 —5:3 We do not, however, attach undue importance to a test which may be fallacious. For the House of Commons takes no official nutlet. of pairs, though the Lords do of proxies; and it must be remembered that,—the leaders of the two great parties continuing firm in their op position—Ballot has 'lynx come before Par liament in a practical shape. Now, when nothing beyond abstract theory is at stake, Radical M.P.s, under the pressure of popular constituencies, care little for what they cute. ' But when a friendly Ministry may be shaken, or when the innovator is called upon to em body his reform in a project of law, then the case alters materially. Sometimes an mote countable panic seizes the victors in the very moment of success. Resolutions disappear suddenly and silently from the uotice-paper. 147 Manchester finds itself indisposed—and the Brigade is absent on business. Nov 4111 proposition only once supported. under any cir cumstances. by 100 members of the House of Commons, be considered as having come prac tically before the country for its trial. Our view of the matter may lie stated in few words. We do not believe that Ballot or any other measuro which does not touch the laws of property will hive the effect desired by its promoters—that of destroying territorial nitlu enee. On the etnltlllq, t l utt influence, (tat WO trusted. with ti m e dy' thes willowner, would not improbably increase. For thee power of the capitalist turns, in great IlleaMMV, on the facility with which he can change or dismiss his hands ; whereas that of the landlord is rather moral than material, resting on tra ditional influences, which have their founda tions deep in human nature itself. But know ing that seereey is not even thought of in .interim—believing that secrecy is not pre served( in France—and holding it exceedingly doubtful whether it even Call or will be so. under any law, among ounedelves—we regard the movement as little else than it delusion. the success of which could end no otherwise than in the bitter disappointment of its sin cere promoters. Other objections nee fillllahlr —such us the inereased obstaelem thrown in the way of detecting bribery, the possible eor ruption of scrutineers, and the precedent of secrecy introduced into judicial. and oven into parliamentary, proeeedings. 'There is, indeed, one constitution, and one state of society, in whieh the protection of the individual voter might become desirable, not to say necessary. With universal suffrage established, and under the pressure of a Splint nutimity, it is con ceivable that the ballot-box, or the vothig piper, should advantageously supersede the intimidation 4,f the hustings. But universal suffrage is far distant. iu England ; and what we see of its working abroad does not pm dispose in its favour. '1'1I1: KEoii II " I NTERPELLATIONS. Ax itaielP in the Standard of last night con tained so true an estimate of this trumpery mameuvre, that we might content ourselves with this single reference, for all that it is neces sary to state by way ofeomment. An imputation is made against the present M inistry. as respect s the appointnwnt of Mr. K it, MI the grounds of his language and eonduet on certain occa sions, and it is sought to meet this imputation by insinuating that he was Awed a place by the late Ministry, previous to the date of the oecasions referred to. There is thus a most fatal crier in the pleadings which was followed up last night by the substitution of hypotheses for evidence. It. would, in truth. have been neither Un natural nor improper, as the statenicats in the debate disclosed, if Mr. licoun had received such an offer at a time when he had not yet utterly abjured his Conservatism. and was co-operating with Lord NAAN in attacking his present colleagues ; but Lord NAAS was neither authorised to make, nor did make, either directly or indirectly, any otter of this descrip tion. On a friendly deprecation of opposition to his return at the Kildare election, Mr. KEooli founded an ingenious inference, which seemed natural to his own fervid imagination (at. least so he represents it), to the effect that ottice was 01101 to him if he pleased. He does not appear to have heeded the fact that every offae milder the Government was tilled up at that time ; and he puts as an assumed analogy to I.4mrd I.IAM'S language, " Suppose a gentle man were to say to a lady, ' If 1 should ask you to marry me, what would be your answer ?'----. what would she understand by it ?'"f o which we reply. that, with the discretion of her sex, she would understand very little if the gentle man were married already, and that little of no praetieal enliven' to herself when the question was simply its to what she might have done had he been single. If. however, Mr. K main hall proved his ease to the entire satisfaction of the House and the country—viz., that he, u young Irish bar lister, on his promotion, imagined that he had