The Press. — London, England, 1856-05-24 00:00:00

ir, a .,.., e / 7 / f, cbt 1)0 rtis No. 160.—VoL. IV. C4t Vrtss. LONDON, SATURDAY, MAY 24, 1856. THE vigilance of Parliament, which has im posed so many restraints on the action of the Executive in all domestic affairs, has left un touched its power of directing the foreign policy of the nation. The Crown nominally— the Government actually—still possesses the absolute right to negotiate with foreign Powers, and to conclude treaties which may bind not only the Ministry of the day but all future Ministries. By this power the national faith may be pledged to the observance of a par ticular course of policy, and engagements be contracted from which there is no escape ex cept by a violation of good faith or an appeal to arms Be it conceded that this power is expedient, that it ought to remain unques tioned, it cannot be doubted that the Ministers exercising it should frankly explain what their policy is, that the country may not be blindly committed to a course adverse to its interests or its wishes. In return for confidence, we have a right to demand sincerity. The country ought to clearly understand the prin ciples of the men in whose hands it places its honour, and to know the general line of policy they purpose pursuing. The question is now raised—What is the meaning of the Tripartite Treaty of the 15th of April ? It is no answer to this question to refer us to the bare text of the Treaty. We can all read that it guarantees the integrity of the Ottoman empire. But we desire to learn something more. We want to know what cir cumstances and considerations were thought to render that Treaty necessary. The security of Turkey was guaranteed by the general Treaty of March 30. That treaty put an end to the war by removing its causes. What were the further motives which led to the Tri partite Treaty ? What European necessity prompted it? In a word, what was the policy which dictated it, and what policy does it re present? Can it seriously be maintained that this Tripartite Treaty represents nothing more than an agreement between the three con tracting Powers that the common Treaty of the 30th March shall be duly executed ? Why should such provision he made ? Great Powers, like England, and France, and Austria, do not enter into solemn and binding engage ments with each other without a clear percep tion of ends, and of their power of carrying those ends into effect. It is, at least, certain that in this instance the three Powers felt sure that their alliance would be sufficiently powerful to secure their object—that the alli ance would give them a preponderating weight and influence in Europe, and that no combi nation which could be formed by other Powers would be able to make head against it. If we regard this Triple Alliance by the text of the treaty alone, is it yet possible to avoid the conclusion that the three parties in union consider themselves the arbiter of Europe— that while the alliance lasts no disturbance LONDON, SATURDAY, MAY 24, 1856. can arise which they have not the means of easily suppressing—that no war can break out which will not be under the complete control of their forces? If the alliance does not re present this idea of European predominance, it can have no meaning whatever, for it would pretend to guarantee an object which it has not the power of securing. Lord PAL MERSTON must have had a sovereign contempt for the understanding, or the principle, of the assembly he was addressing, when he asserted that this Triple Alliance did not in any way imply an ascendancy in Europe. The pre sumption of such ascendancy is the very foundation upon which it rests. Not less absurd was Lord PALMERSTON'S argument that this Tripartite Treaty could have no influence on the general policy of Europe, because it was concluded for a specific purpose. It is impossible that the alliances of powerful States can be limited to special ends. They must from their very nature be of a wide and general character. They must represent a system of policy. What can be more ridiculous than to suppose, as Lord PALMERSTON pretends, that States can be closely allied with each other as respects some ends, and decidedly hostile to each other as respects other ends—that they can at once and the same time he agreed and disagreed—that they can be united and re pugnant—bound in amity by a junction of right hands, while stabbing at each other with left hands? Does any sane man believe that England, France, and Austria, while firmly associated on the Turkish question, can be dis sociated on the Italian question, or any other question whatever? While their alliance sub sists, they will find some way or other of ac commodating all differences which could disturb it. In consideration of the advantages and the strength resulting from it, they will easily make some sacrifices of sentiment and predilection. That they should at once be not only united and opposed is not only im probable but impossible ; for, from the instant that their opposition becomes decided the alliance would cease, and the Tripartite Treaty would become waste paper. Sardinia understands this. She is awaking to the inevitable consequences of the Triple Alliance. Her position is embarrassing and painful. She joined the Allies in arms while Austria still held back. It is not to be sup posed that a State like Sardinia would engage in a war which in no way directly concerned her without hope of some advantage. She stood forward in opposition to Austria as the champion of Italian unity and independence. She hoped to increase her weight as an Italian power. Why might not Austria retain the Danubian provinces in exchange for her Italian territory? Sardinia would, in that case, be freed from a hostile and powerful neighbour, and Lombardy might be united to Piedmont. Such speculations were encou raged by public opinion in this country. Sardinia believed beyond doubt that when the Italian question was next raised, France and England would stand by her side in opposi tion to Austria. as . never. Monda Alliance, con' All, supporters. policy directly an Lion: honour , in _ disaffect. safeguard, fall_ favorable express less AB: dem: what should matic of relations terfuge, prof the: by What is the case now? The Italian question has become urgent. The excitement caused by the war cannot be suppressed. On one side Sardinia is pressed by the secret societies of Italy, and on the other she is met by the firm resistance of Austria. She appeals to France and England for aid; with what result we may conjecture from the assurance in the THE claptrap STAMPED .... SIXPENCE. TJNSTA?dPED..FIVEPENCE. organ of the Premier, that " in relation to the " state of Italy the English Government is " doing just nothing at all. It looks on and " waits. When the time of action comes it " will know its duty." These may probably be Lord PALMERSTON'S own words. They are not very dissimilar to those he employed in the House on Monday evening. While waiting for " the time of action," Italy is to be soothed by promises of reform. Lord MINTo'S mission was to promote reform, and we _ _ _ ' prods thus to be will began spirit. beneficent Minister. of her is practice, But violence Lombard but to be . Sit ments there policy. might become liberty medic tion, less. Alliance the ( patriots INTO s mission was to promote reform, auu I know what kind of reform it tended to oduce. The Italian people are not to be us put off. They desire liberty, they desire be freed from foreign domination, and they 11 be content with nothing less. Pio Nisi) Ran his pontificate in a most reforming irit. Count Rossi, a layman and a most neficent and enlightened statesman, was his inister, and Count Rossi fell by the daggers assassins. Austria desires to introduce into r Italian administration as much reform as practicable, and as much freedom as is safe. it her good intentions are restrained by the )lence she has to control. Why is her rule in imbardy different from her rule in the Tyrol, .t because in the one case she is compelled be severe, and in the other she can afford to confiding. Situated as Italy is, coerced by Govern- nits the people are anxious to overthrow, ere is no policy possible but a repressive hey. If freed from foreign domination, Italy ght show capacity for self-government, and come united and free. But between perfect ,erty and stern government there can be no !dium. The secret societies aim at lihera- , n, and they will be content with nothing is. They must be satisfied or repressed. To which line of policy does the Triple liance point ? In presence of that great fact, e encouragement still held out to the Italian triots is a mockery, and it is as mischievous it is insincere. Lord PALMERSTON was ver more disingenuos than in his speech of Dnday night. He has concluded the Triple liance, that a predominant power may be nstituted in Europe ; and he repudiates the liance, lest he should offend his Liberal pporters. He professes one system of licy in his speeches, while he supports a rectly opposite system by his acts He is absolutist in the Cabinet, and a revolu- mist out of it. His double-dealing dis- nours the nation, and stirs up disturbance every part of Europe where elements of saffection exist. His professed enmity is a feguard, and his professed friendship a pit- I. If he conceives an Austrian Allianee to be forable to this country, why should he not press his convictions? Why should he be is candid than his late colleague, Lord lERDEEN ? We may have no cause to con- tun his policy, but we have a right to know iat it is. The Prime Minister of England ould disdain to skulk in the dark ways of diplo- itic deceit. What an insult is i • • ople this country to assum , • I; • FT - r''''• • , ations must be conducte&J) a 4' .- • -fuge, and that they can beg • • . ofessions into aporoval ,is . - ...,, , h i . rip ey would reject with con --%:.• . g a manly and honest av 9 ' t k....:: ..A, 4 r... 1 L.:: V` C lI IP S 1? THE JOBBERY OF , E ‘,.-.: : t., IE propensity of the " ~ - • A . N1 , 10 4 . 10 ,, iptrap cries, and then to absa , on them A •