The Press. — London, England, 1857-02-14 00:00:00

146 On the first night of the session, the Right Hon. Member for Bucks made certain state ments, to show that the foreign policy of Lord PALMERSTON'S Administration was delusive, inasmuch as it tended to raise the hopes of foreign Liberalism only to disappoint them, and to raise continental disturbance, well knowing that no practical result could possibly result from it, except, indeed, the restraint or punishment of those persons who attempted to force on the Courts of Europe a policy they were not prepared to adopt. Mr. DisrtAx particularly alluded to the encouragement given to Sardinia to stand forth as the cham pion of Italian independence in opposition to Austria. He called attention to the fact, that while at the Paris Conferences Lord CLAREN DON had Ipietended to assume an attitude of opposition or hostilily to Austrian supremacy in Italy, he knew that a secret treaty was in existence, which bound France to support Austria in the possession of her Italian dominions, and, consequently, enabled the Austrian Plenipotentiaries to regard the de monstration in favour of Sardinia as a farce only fit to be laughed at, Sardinia being the dupe of the piece. The Right Honourable Member for Bucks asserted the existence of this secret treaty as a fact of which the British Foreign-office must hive been aware when the Conferences were held ; and he drew the inference that all the sympathy manifested by Lord PALMERSTON'S Administration in favour of Sardinia, as opposed to Austria, and all the demonstra tions of the Ministerial party in favour of Italian independence, were false and worthless. Lord PALMERSTON denied the existence of any such treaty. In the most express lan guage he declared that it was " a romance." He said that the Leader of Opposition had been imposed on by Paris gobemouches. There was no foundation whatever for the assertion of a secret treaty—except this, that in the early part of the war there were communica tions between the Austrian and French Governments, in which the latter agreed to take no part hostile to Austria in Italy. This exception looked suspicious. It partly justified Mr. DISRAET.I'S statement ; but on other points Lord PALMERSTON S contradiction was as ex plicit as words could make it. This pointed and contemptuous contradiction by Lord PALMERSTON raised a question of personal credit between the Leaders of the Govern ment and of the Opposition in the House of Commons. As we said last week, it was im possible for the matter to end there. On Tuesday Mr. DISRAELI again brought the subject before the House. He rectipitu lited what had passed; he showed the impor tance of the subject; and then he repeated his former assertion, that a secret treaty was in existence of the purport he had alleged, and he named the day on which it had been signed, the Vnd of December, 1554 Lord PALMERSTON met the assertion this time still with ridicule, but ne vertheless with somewhat more reserve. To the best of his knowledge and belief no such treaty existed. But now the exception was wider than it had been at first. The Noble Viscount explained that when it was a question whether Austria should join the Western Powers against Russia, she manifested some anxiety for her Italian possessions, as Russia might at tempt to instigate Italian insurrection, and asked whether, supposing Austria joined the Allies, the French forces in Italy would join the Austrian forces to suppress any insurrectionary movement? The Prime Mi- nister said that Austria was assured in reply that France under such circumstances would act as an honourable ally—that engage ments were thereupon entered into between the two Governments, and that those engage ments " were viilloubtedly known to the English " Government." Now, this admission stasto.n tially confirmed Mr. Dime,Etfa statement; bat the Prime Minister added, tha; that conven lion, as he termed it, was not, so far as the Government knew, ever signed, and therefore was of no effect. Setting aside inferential conclusions, the argument between the Prime Minister and the Leader of Opposition was now reduced So a simple fact. The Right Hon. Member THE PRESS. for Bucks asserted that the treaty was signed, and named the day when the signatures were affixed. He asserted that it had been acted on by Austria withdrawing troops from Italy, and by communicating assurances to the Governments of the Italian peninsula that they had nothing to fear from insurrec tionary movements. Lord PALMERSTON denied that the treaty or convention was ever signed, and consequently denied that it could be acted on. Again, it became impossible that a ques tion of fact not difficult of solution could re main in suspense when such great Pod ia mentary reputations depended on its solution. It was necessary that the truth should be elicited. On Thursday, Lord PALMERSTON, not Mr. DISRAELI, was the first to rise. He said, he had learned that the treaty or convention had, in point of fact, been signed, but be pre tended that it Was rather a military than a political convention, and that therefore it did not hear the character which Mr. DISRAELI had alleged. Subsequently, Lord PALMERSTON lost his temper, and we have no wish to dwell on the melancholy scene that closed the discussion. The question of fact is now settled. The secret treaty or convention, described by Mr. DISRAET.L does exist. What is its bearing on the Italian question? Lord PALMERSTON has twice stated the nature of the charge urged against the foreign policy of the Government. On the first night of the session, he said : The Right Honourable Gentleman seems to consider that, while on the one hand we are stimulating revolutions in My, on the other we are advising and encouraging the French to undertake to put them down—an incon• sistency certainly of which no Government would be likely to be guilty. On Tuesday last he stated the charge in other terms : What, then, was the nature of the charge brought against her Majesty's Government? Why this—that while professing openly to have great interest in the welfare of the Italian people, and to sympathise with their aversion against a foreign yoke, it secretly instit,ated sod encouraged the French Government in giving a guarantee, with respect to the Austrian possessions in Italy, entirely at variance with that pretended sympathy. Whether Lord PALmERSTON'S Administration has " stimulated revolutions in Italy," and whether it has " sympathised with the aver " sion of the Italian people against a foreign " yoke," must be decided by the public acts of the Government, and by the declarations of their adherents. That France has been encou raged to guarantee the Austrian possessions in Italy by the Government of which Lords PALMERSTON and C LAREN DON were principal members, is now established by the Prime Minister's own admission. It was to Sardinia that the Right Honour able Member for Bucks principally alluded and it is therefore important to inquire how far this secret treaty affected Sardinia. Sar dinia complained, in the Memorandum of Count CAvoun, April 16, 1856, of Austrian supremacy in Italy. It urged that the means taken by Austria to repress revolutionary fer ment in Italy gave her military possession of the Valley of the Po and of Central Italy, and that hence Austrian power in Italy was " a " continual menace to Piedmont" and a " real " danger to all Europe." With these com plaints Lord CLARENDON pretended to sympa thise, though he well knew that Austrian su premacy had been firmly assured by the policy of the Foreign-office, over which he presided. How was the strength of Austria in Italy to be weakened? Plainly, as Count CAVOUR fore saw and demonstrated, by the joint action of France and England. But France had by secret treaty affirmed that Austria should be maintained in possession of her Italian domi nions; and England, as it now appears, had taken part in counselling and arranging that. treaty. When it is said that any charge of duplicity brought against the English Government on this occasion must weigh equally against the Government of France, this broad distinction is overlooked :—the Government of France has never instigated insurrection in Italy ; it has never sympathised with the Liberalism of that country ; it has, on the contrary, shown its - determination to assist by anus, if need SATURDAY, be, sin suppressing any outburst of revolu tionary spirit, and has manifested its resolve to maintain existing territorial arrangements. As the ally of England, the French Govern• ment has yielded something to the urgent representations of Lord PALMERSTON'S Adminis tration. At the Paris Conferences the French Plenipotentiary supported with reserve Lord CLARENDON'S lead on the Italian question ; but France has given no countenance whatever to that support of Italian Liberalism, and those hopes of Italian independence, which Lord PALM E RsroN's Administration has hung forth as it flag to conciliate its Liberal adherents in this country. If we are not misinformed, France engaged in the remonstrances to Naples with reluc tance, and refused to move at all until the English Government had pledged itself to afford no support to the revolutionary party in the Two Sicilies. That pledge, we must say, has been redeemed. The unfertunate Sicilian insurgents have been captured and executed ; the soldier instigated to attempt the assassi nation of the King has met his doom. We can well understand why the Government of Naples should have replied to the English remonstrance with contempt, if doubly assured that no revolutionary movement in Italy would be permitted. There is a broader charge against Lord PALMERSTON'S foreign policy than the Right Hon. Member for Bucks has made. It is,— that, for electioneering purposes in this coun try, he lures foreign Liberals to their ruin,— that be encourages them to rise against their Governments, and trades in their blood shed in the battle-field and on the scaffold,—that, by his consistent chicanery, he delays the progress of improvement in those countries where hopes of national independence linger, and compels Governments to be harsh by stimuliting disaffection among the people. This policy, in the end, preserves the existing territorial arrangements of Europe, and so far may in some sort be thought Conservative. But by what tortuous and detestable means is the end attained? The insurrectionists are disowned when the crisis arrives, and left to perish the victims of their generous illusion. The honour of England is stained, that the demagogues of the country may be deceived into the belief that our foreign policy is di rected by an idea of Liberal Propagandism, when, in reality, it seeks alliances which are a pledge for its suppression. THE LORD CHANCELLOR'S REFORMS. THE Lotto CHANCELLOR has laid before Par liament his promised measures of reform, and they have more than realised the anticipations that we lately expressed upon the subject. He proposes by three separate bills, in the first place, to abolish the testamentary juris• diction of the Ecclesiastical Courts, and to establish a new court in their stead ; secondly, to alter and amend the law of divorce ; and, lastly, to institute a new mode of procedure for investigating aud punishing offences of the clergy. We doubt whether the most zealous of his Lordship's friends can look with the slightest degree of confidence to the future fate of any one of these important measures. We pointed out on a former occasion the grave objections which we entertained to Lord CRASWORTH'S plan for reforming the Ecclesias tical Courts. We showed that it was erroneous in principle, and most unnecessarily compli cated in its details. His Lordship's speech on Tuesday night confirmed our views upon the subject. In attempting to get rid of one tribunal which all the world admits to be bad, he would set up another which a very mode rate amount of reflection must convince us would prove a great deal worse. The abuses at present attendant upon the testamentary jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts are notorious enough. The mode of procedure in contested suits is dilatory and expensive to the last degree ; and the rules of evidence, being borrowed from the civil law under which the parties on either side are examined, not in open court, but iu private, are wholly ) i