The Press. — London, England, 1857-03-21 00:00:00

MARCH 21, 1857. Of those accidental combinations, on the contrary, which spring from political convic tion, apart from purpose, compact, and calcu lation of consequences, we have numerous instances in the Parliament now on the point of expiring. Lord DERBY has mentioned one such instance—the division on Mr. LocKE KING'S motion. Who thought of calling that a coalition ? A more memorable instance was the division on Mr. ROEBUCK'S motion for a Sebastopl Committee. Then the Govern ment were defeated by an overwhelming majority. Nearly the whole body of indepen dent Liberals went into the same lobby with the whole body of Conservatives, but no one ever thought of branding that majority as a coalition. The majority was united for one purpose only, as the majority on the China vote was united but for one purpose. In each case the combination ended with the divi sion, and there was no kind of subsequent party action. The difference between a coalition in a fac tious or unconstitutional sense of the term, and an agreement of men (whose general principles are adverse) on a particular ques tion, is, that in.the former case the combina tion results from defiance of principle, and in the latter case from respect for principle. In the one case men consult their interests or ambition ; in the other their conscience and judgment. The' Ministerialists have found that they overleapt their mark in endeavouring to fix on the majority which defeated them a charge of factious' combination. While they hoped it might swell into a popular cry they were inde fatigable in urging it ; bnt since they find that it is bolily faced. and that the public sen timent recoils from it, they are glad to draw in their horns. It is an old trick for culprits conscious of guilt to endeavour to divert sus picion from themselves by fixing it on innocent persons ; and the Pahnerstonians hoped by joining in the "hark follow' of their Leader to divert attention from the real cause of the dis solution, and the sinister end they had in view. THE 13AL MASQUE AT NAPLES. AIR. MACAULAY has wittily observed of the Earl TEMPLE Of CHATHAM'S day, that his course could be tracked, like that of a mole, by the heaps of dirt he threw up. Lords PALMERS TON and CLARENDON are more skilful in their underground labours. They are such masters in the art of secret diplomacy that they long contrive to baffle observation, and, when at length caught and challenged, they have as many shifts to escape, and as many disguises to assume, as a magician in a fairy tale. Whenever the doings of the Foreign-office for the last two years shall be thoroughly exposed, they will exhibit, we dare allege, such intri cacy of intrigue and sinucsity of falsehood as to excite amazement that English Ministers should ever have sunk so low, and that the English people should ever have permitted the plea of diplomatic reserve to cloak pro ceedings which fix a stain of . perfidy on their national character. When the " Correspondence relating to the Affairs of Naples " was produced, some wee ks back, it was apparent on the face of it that some documents must have been omitted. Between the 19th of May, 1856, when Lord CLARENDON instructed Sir WILLIAM TEMPLE to make a representation to the Neapolitan Government, that " a new course of internal " policy " ought to be adopted, and the 10th of October, when the Foreign Secretary in structed Mr. PETRE to withdraw the British Legation from Naples, not a single instruc tion to the British agents at Naples would appear to have been sent by Lord CLARENDON. Are we to suppose that during that period of five months, when the public mind of Europe was agitated by a menaced intervention in the affairs of Naples, our Foreign-office was silent ? This supposition is too absurd for even Lord PALMERSTON to put forward. When questioned on the subject, he admitted that communica tions were omitted from the papers laid before Parliament ; but stated that, as they related to certain probable contingencies which never THE PRESS. took place, ino purpose could he answered by the production of the papers. Now, on this point, the Legislature might surely be left to judge for itself. The papers, though they had no practical result, might throw much light on the action of her Ma jesty's Government, and be essential to a just comprehension of its policy. The conceal ment was suspicious. Many of the documents in the correspondence are wholly valueless, such Rs the anonymous manifestoes of Neapo litan Liberals. If the omitted papers had been really unimportant, is it likely that they would have been suppressed? Lately some significant hints have appeared in both foreign and English journals on the true character of these suppressed papers. It is asserted that they relate to a proposal made by the Cabinet of England to that of France, that, in the event of the allied intervention exciting a revolutionary movement in Naples, the forces of England should join those of France to suppress it. On this subject the Right Honourable Mem ber for Bucks addressed a question to the Premier on Tuesday evening. Was such pro posal ever made? Lord PALMERSTON denied that it was, yet there was a lurking ambiguity in his language which rendered his denial far rom satisfactory. In the House of Lords on Thursday, Lord HARDWICKE pressed Lord CLARENDON to state how it was that the Western Powers had abandoned their intention of sending all allied squadron into the Bay of Naples, after their determination to that effect had been taken. The Foreign Secretary replied, " Because such a step would probably have " led to insurrectionary movements, which " the allied Powers were anxious to avert." Tins answer supplies a strong presumption that the suppressed papers must have related to the probability of au insurrectionary move ment, and that they must have discussed the measures which it would be proper for the Allies to take in the event of any insurrection breaking forth. Lord GRANVILLE concluded the conversation by saying that the subject must be left for the new Parliament to discuss. So, after all, there is matter for discussion not yet before the public. The Morning Star of yesterday, speaking evidently from authority, expressly states the purport of the communications contained in the suppressed papers : The allied squadrons were under orders to sail for the Bay of Naples when England sent to France an intimation, the plain reading of which was, Before we go we must tell you that the people are so discontented that the Muratists are gaining ground, and we are not pre. pared to recognise a Murat for King; we hope to be favoured with a frank expression of your views. To which France replied, Our views are neither one way nor another —we seek neither to encourage nor repudiate a Murat—the only thing we will not recognise at Naples is a Republic. Then followed the fatal response of England, that she, on her part, would agree not to recognise a Republic, if France would agree not to recognise a Murat. No, said France, for how can Napoleon, who wears the crown of France, "par la volonte nalionale," refuse to acknowledge a sovereign in Naples elected "par la volonle nationale," and when no other reason can be assigned than that Napoleon and Murat are members of the same family ? From that moment the naval demonstration to the Bay of Naples was at an end. And to those who think we have been imposing upon the public credulity in this matter we reply, that the diplomatic communications to which we allude are in existence in French and English, and that they prove our thrice-repeated declaration that a Liberal Premier was ready to bombard Naples in order to put down Republican institutions. The House of Commons meets on Saturday, and his lordship can have the opportunity of pronouncing that all this is false. If not, like himself, we appeal to the country. We have reasons of our own for believing that this statement is substantially correct. We feel no confidence in Ministerial denials. While it is evident from the Neapolitan correspondence that Mr. PETRE, at Naples, had lent himself to a mean system of es pionage, and had in the interest of the Liberals turned himself into an informer against the Neapolitan Government, the Eng lish Minister at Florence had, as we arc cre dibly informed, been writing for so►ne length of time to Lord CLARENDON, affirming in strong terms that Mr. PETRE'S stories were all romance. It would seem from accounts which reach us now, not for the first time, that the British Legation at Florence is the hotbed of Austrian Italianism, and most earnest in its efforts 267 to gain evidence to uphold the King of NAPLES, and to refute the statements of Mr. PETRE. Lord NORMAN BY, if we are correctly informed, has repeatedly urged his views in despatches to the Foreign-office. Yet our Legation has left Naples on Mr. PETRE'S representation, while the Marquis of NORMANBY, the devoted friend of the Sicilian Government, and the apologist of all its acts, remains at Florence as the sole representative of Southern Italy for communicating with her Majesty's Go vernment ! THE CHURCH AND THE CONSER VATIVES. THERE must always be parties in the Church of England. When the heavy hand of Rome was removed from the national hierarchy, those inevitable differences sprung up which, within certain limits, are the sign of health and vigour But we ought not to forget that the existence of controversies has been inno cuous to the Church of England, very much in proportion as they have not been identified with the support of political parties. In past times Low Churchmen were not necessarily Whigs, nor High Churchmen as inevitably Tories. That their theological views corre sponded respectively with certain different sects of political ideas must, of course, he admitted. But the assimilation was purely speculative. The adherence of both to that party which was known to be the friend of the Church was practical ; and from the moment that the Church became exposed to even the most distant peril, an overwhelming majority of both parties rallied round the Conserva tives. At the present moment an attempt is being made to alienate the Evangelicals by. extolling the pure Protestantism of Lord PALMERSTON ; and it is hoped that the High Churchmen, being pledged to the Peelites (for we know no other name), and the Low Churchmen to the Premier, very little of the ecclesiastical influ ence in the country will be at the service of the Conservative party. The scheme is cer tainly ingenious. But we doubt if the tools are strong enough. Lord PALMERSTON, with all . his transcendent powers of imposture, must sink under the impersonation of the " man of God ;" while the ultra•sacerdotalists will be sorely put to it to detect an enemy of the church in the representative of the House of Stanley and the Tory country gentlemen of England. Such is the political situation at the present moment; and, bearing in mind our opening observations, we think the clergy would do well to ponder on the advice recently ten dered by Mr. DISRAELI, before they permit conflicting theological views to be identified with conflicting politics. That advice is to turn their eyes for a. moment from internal divisions to the aspect of the world without—to note the greedy satisfaction with which their religious ene mies are watching their present proceedings,. and to take timely warn►ng lest they them selves unconsciously undermine those ram parts which have hitherto shielded them ffmn assault. Secure within these, the Church may differ with impunity on tho various dogmas of theology, but denuded of them, such disputes would instantly be made the means of rending her frame to pieces. On which, then, of the two great parties can the Church rely for support in the hour of real danger? This question cannot be an swered by a reference to the personal senti ments of particular party leaders. Most of our party leaders are aristocrats, and have hereditary sympathies with the Church. We must look rather at the character of the classes by whom these leaders are followed, and the nature of the measures which may possibly be forced upon them. We do not imagine Lord PALM ERSTON is unfriendly to the Church. At the present moment, indeed, Ile has excel lent reasons for the contrary sentiment. But Lord PALMERSTON, though he governs the country, does not govern the Liberal party. Ho might be willing to he the Church's guar dian, but who will be the guardian of himself? Who but Church haters of every shade of opinion and every extreme of hostility? Could he save the Church, even if hejw•ould, from the pertinacious eflbrts of his own sup-,