The Press. — London, England, 1856-07-12 00:00:00

No. 167.—V0L.1V. LONDON, SATURDAY, JULY 12, 1856. Ebt Vrtss. address remonstrances to the Imperial Court on their behalf. We recognise the great diffi culties of the Emperor NAPOLEON'S position, and we suppose that he resorts to measures of severity with reluctance, and only from an overwhelming sense of their necessity. To the Cabinet of Vienna our Government has on more than one occasion addressed, stinging remonstrances, btu they have only been so far attended to, as to call forth dignified recrimi- LONIiON,S ATURDAY, JULY 12, 1858. Wic have reason to believe that the reply of his Majesty the King of the Two SICILIES to the joint representations of the Governments of England and France has been received, and has been for some days in the hands of her Majesty's Ministers. This reply, we under stand, is curt and haughty. It is said to be founded on a principle very difficult to be questioned by her Majesty's Government. As the Sovereign of an independent nation, the King denies the right of any foreign Govern ment to interfere in the internal affairs of his State. If the representations of the allied Governments have been of a friendly character, this answer will preclude them from further interfereuee. They must leave the King to administer the affairs of his State according to his discretion, or they must plainly declare that they dispute the principle of national in dependence and sovereignty, and that they conceive themselves justified in coercing the Governments of those States which do not appear sufficiently strong to resist an armed intervention. Should the latter ground be taken, the allied Governments will place themselves in singular opposition to the principle which the war with Russia was expressly undertaken to vindicate. The Court of St. Petersburg claimed a right to interfere in the internal affairs of the Turkish empire, and attempted to maintain that claim by force of arms. The Allies, on the contrary, contended that the independence of the Ottoman Government should on no pretence be infringed. We have asserted that principle and caused it to be respected, but at the cost of a hundred millions of money, and by the sacrifice of, at least, fifty thousand British lives. Are we now to maintain that our foreign policy is to be regulated by one principle towards the East of Europe, and by another towards the South? Are we to engage in one war to uphold the great political doc trine of non intervention in favour of Turkey, and in another war to assert the opposite principle of intervention against Naples? The "friendly representations" of one Go vernment to another concerning matters of internal administration, are not often pro ductive of happy results ; and for this reason, perhaps, the Foreign Minister of this country has usually refrained from addressing his re presentations to the Governments of powerful States. VV e view the institution of slavery in the United States with dislike, but we do not ♦enture to address friendly remonstrances on the subject to the Cabinet at Washington. Shocking reports occasionally reach our ears of the treatment of political prisoners in Russia, and of the horrors of exile to Siberia, but we do not think it necessary to make the cause of the sufferers our own Even in France the treatment of the Repub lican prisoners, and of the deportation of numbers to the pestiferous climate of Cayenne, has been wholly opposed to our notions of justice, but we should not think it decorous to nation To minor Powers our course has been dif ferent, but not encouraging. We have ad dressed remonstrances to Spain, to Greece, to every Government of the Italian peninsula}; to old monarchies in the East and to new republics in the West. In some cases those remonstrances have been defied ; in others they have been received with sullen acquies cence ; but in no instance can we recollect that they have achieved their object. Most commonly they have excited illusive hopes, stirred revolutionary passions, been productive of violence and disorder, and, in the end, have led to an increase of rigour on the part of the Courts to which they were addressed. In the debate fixed for Monday next, it will be proper for the House to insist on knowing what the ultimate inten tions'of our Government really are. As the Xing of NAPLES declines to mould his system of government by the ideas of France and England, is an armed interven tion contemplated ? Will the territory of Naples be occupied by a French army, while an English fleet co-operates in the work of coercion ? If such a measure be resorted to, a new principle of international policy will be established of the most dangerous kind. The whole system of Europe, founded on the inde pendent sovereignty of its several States, will be overthrown. The lesser Powers will lose all sense of security in their position, and in the intrigues and combinations which such a change must give rise to may not improbably be laid the foundation of a great continental rupture. We cannot think that such intervention is intended, or that it would be sanctioned by the Government of the Emperor of the FRENCH. The end of our representations will probably be an exchange of angry despatches. The uncertainty that exists, however. is one s t ro ng reason why her ajesty's Ministers should explicitly declare what their inten tions are. We must presume that they have a policy; that they were not unprepared for that reply which has reached them from the Court of Naples ; and that they have decided whether, under any circumstances, force is to be resorted to, in order to compel submission to their views. Foreign politics are at this time the only politics worthy to engage the attention of our people. To withhold from them all information on the dealings of our Govern ment with foreign Powers, and on the policy it intends to pursue on so great a question as intervention or non-intervention in the affairs of the Italian States, is to deprive them of all legitimate control over the national policy, and to invest the Government for the time being with despotic powers. It would be easy by the display of a mighty force to extort from the Court of Naples sub• mission to any changes demanded in its inte rior policy. But does any one suppose that those changes would be peimanent, or that while the reigning power continued un changed, there would not be continued efforts to escape from what could not be felt other- aj . I s rti;s STAMPED SIXPENCE. UNSTAMPED FIVEPENCE. wise than as a degrading thraldom? It might gratify the pride of certain classes in this country to see Naples at the feet of Fiance and England; but no useful reform or real improvement could possibly spring from the reluctant submission of the Administrative Power, however composed, to foreign domina tion. THE MANCHESTER EXHIBITION. THE letter of the Prince Consort to Lord ELLESMERE on the proposed exhibition at Manchester is a pleasing proof of the interest taken by his Royal Highness in the advance • ment of Art, and Art Education, in this coun try, and of the clearness of his perceptions as to the means by which they may be best pro moted. The Prince sagaciously observes that, to render Art Exhibitions really useful, some principle should pervade them, so that the mind may read the history of the works, and have more to dwell on than the merits of the objects themselves. The Prince suggests, also, that when the owners of valuable works perceive how instructive they may be made by being fitted into their due place in Art His tory, more readiness will be evinced to lend them than if no such principle of classification wore attempted. . The communication of the Prince does him the more honour; and reads with greater grace, as it is addressed to Lord ELLESMERE. The respect universally conceded to the amiable qualities of this eminent Nobleman must guard his conduct from invidious remark ; yet it is extremely difficult to reconcile his pro ceedings as a member of the Exhibition Com mission with the letter he addressed to Lord ELetio, urging opposition to the Government Bill for erecting the new National Gallery on the Kensington Gore site. As a member of the Commission his Lord ship was a party to the Report bearing date the 12th of April last. In this Report it is assumed that the Kensington Gore estate presents the best site for the new National Gallery, and that no opposition to it was con contemplated. In its concluding paragraphs the Report states : Satisfactory relations have been at the same time mind)• lashed between the Government and out selves, and arrangements entered upon for securing harmony of action in all that relates to the appropriation of the site purchased at the joint expense of the public and the Royal Commission. The recommendations of the Committee of the House of Commons on the National Gallery constitute another important s tep towards the development of the scheme put forward by us. These sentences were considered by Lord ELLESMERE. He knew that the Commission were acting on the supposition that the Gore house site was settled for the Gallery, yet be offered not a word of opposition, and did not even suggest delay. It was in consequence the Government intro& moving the National scheme was before the wens, by his letter to strength to the Oppoi. decided many votes. M, of this Report that luced the ,1,' , 4147af4 t) Galle . - I . l4.irt si Hells. • ` " • I n I FIrT `" Mb More .144. ....7/044 4 :E . 4; 2 kt