The Press. — London, England, 1856-10-11 00:00:00

._, OCTOBER 11, 1856. letter, and our tendency to mirth predomi nates. Then we think of him as the elegant and accomplished scholar and author, and de rision is succeeded by regret that so fine an intellect should have become so imbecile or• sunk so irretrievably low. To the letter itself, apart from the character of the writer, we do not suppose the public will attach more than its duo importance. The vagaries of a fast young lady and a doting old man are not likely to produce much effect upon the practical English mind. For be it known, under the somewhat masculine desig nation of J. MERITON WHITE lurk the attri butes of an eccentric young person, who, if a crack pistol-shot were all that tyrannicide re quired, would doubtless earn the MI. for her self. This Diana Vernon of Lambeth, who has set the example of emancipation in her own person by flying from the roof of her boat building sire, is now appropriately devoting her energies to the masculine accomplish ments of cigar-smoking and pistol-firing, and to the liberation of the "oppressed national ities " of Europe. Smitten by the energy, and doubtless by the charms, of this revolutionary May, the January of Liberalism has warmed into a greater d is • play of vigour than he ever before discovered. May, charming young enthusiast, is collecting subscriptions for an Italian conflagration fund, and hoary January, determined to vindi cate his manhood, gallantly responds by offer ing a premium upon murder! Happy, happy, happy pair ! As to the young woman herself, who will probably elope with a Polish count, and be no more heard of, we may very well leave her to the enjoyment of her present reputation. But what shall we say of Mr. WALTER SAVAGE I.Asnoa ? If no personal considerations can weigh with him, let him for a moment consider the consequences that must ensue, were his advice to be accepted by those for whose bene fit it was offered Let us suppose that some inflammable Frenchman or Italian, taking Mr. LANDOR'S words as a deliberate declaration of English opinion, were to commit this iniquity which Mr. LANDOR has chosen to invest with such rank and noxious greatness, and all Europe would rise against the cause which Mr. LANDOR so zealously represents. Patriot ism would then, indeed, become but another name for villainy, and Liberalism he robbed of that little show of reason which it has hitherto enjoyed. Does Mr. LANDOR suppose that the murder of twenty kings would put down monarchy, or that the destruction of monarchy could lead to freedom from oppres sion? It is a melancholy thing to witness the decay of fine faculties—that mental debility which attends extreme duration of life—when, says the poet, we remember neither the names of our servants nor the faces of our friends— but a far more painful sight is that of one in whom violence keeps pace with infirmity, and wickedness increases with impotence. For unless Mr. LANDOR is absolutely and literally in his dotage, his recent publication must be stigmatised as a gross and unpardon able crime. How our contemporary could have permitted himself to insert it is inex plicable. Whatever our own law may have to say on the subject, we are quite certain that no foreign potentate would allow language to be used in his dominions which contained even the most covert insinuations against the life or the authority of Queen VICTORIA. Whether any power resides in the English law adequate to the repression of such in famous and disgraceful assaults upon the con tinental allies of this country—assaults which, if directed against his bitterest and most treacherous foe, every man worthy the name of Englishman would repudiate with disgust —we cannot at this moment determine. We can only express a hope that, should any one be so foolish and flagitious as to follow Mr. LANDOR'S exampl e , th e l aw w ill b e s t re t c h e d t o its limits to find some punishment that may mark the national sense of the atrocity. Of Mr. LANDOR himself we speak almost as much in sorrow as in anger; but w e s h ou ld b e glad if it could be generally understood that such behaviour can be brought within the scope of the law, and that no future offender can hope for similar impunity. THE PRESS. FOREIGN INTERVENTION. Le Nord of Saturday last published and called particular attention to the subjoined article from the Journal de Frankfort as a communi cation from Vienna:— It is clearly one of the fundamental principles of international law that the sovereignty of every inde pendent State ought to be respected as sacred ; that, consequently, other States have not the right of pre scribing the course of its internal policy, of exacting that it should follow their counsels, and especially of accompanying their demands by threats, or of having recourse to measures of compulsion. The only exception to this rule is the case when the internal policy of a State threatens in an evident manner to disturb the internal tranquillity or the external peace of other States. In that case, the States really threatened have a right to demand, and, as a last resource, to obtain by force the removal of that danger. The principle of the sacred character of the sove reignty of an independent State is applicable, without distinction, to every form of government, to monar chies as well as to republics. All States are there fore equally interested in the actual proceedings of the Western powers towards Naples. Should they in this instance violate the fundamental principle above cited, they would inaugurate on our continent a new international law, making the internal policy of States subordinate to the will of powers strong enough to exact it. . . General and indefinite wars would be the inevitable result. The different States are therefore—for the destinies of all are equally at stake—justified in de voting their full attention to the proceedings of the Western powers towards the legitimate Sovereign of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. The question is not to ascertain whether the internal policy of that monarch is deserving of praise or of censure, but to ascertain whether that policy threatens to disturb the internal tranquillity or the external peace of France and of England. If it does not threaten them—and surely there is no manifestation of such a danger—those powers have not the slightest right to exact a modification of that policy, still less to acquire it by force. Yet if those powers, because it is their good plea sure to declare as dangerous the system of govern ment of Ferdinand 11., or to see therein the germ of a revolution which might extend over all Italy, have made exactions, and now use threats (for every demonstration is a threat), which they are to put into execution should they not be complied with— which is probable—they thereby lay down at once a principle incompatible with the independence of States, and, further, set an example the consequences of which equally threaten the latter, because it makes the fear only of possible events a legal motive for intervention. Thirty-six years ago there was also question of intervention in the internal affairs of this same king dom—but it was asked for by the legitimate sove reign, the grandfather of the present Zing. Although that fact alone justified the assistance given by Austria with the consent of France, of Prussia, and of Russia, the Austrian Government nevertheless, in its diplomatic documents, referred to the imme diate danger which threatened it. Thus we find in Prince Nletternich's circular despatch of the 25th of July, 1820, the following pas sage : The interests of his Majesty the Emperor are especially compromised in these sad events in consequence of his political and personal relations, of his near relationship with different princely houses of Italy, and of the geogra phical position of his own States. Austria possessed, moreover, the right by contract of exacting that the Constitution of the Cortes should not be introduced into the kingdom of Naples, for it is said in a secret article of the treaty concluded on the 12th of June, 1815, with Austria:— As the engagements which their Majesties take by this treaty with a view to insure the internal peace of Italy make it their duty to preserve their States and their re spective subjects from fresh reactions and from the evil of imprudent innovations which might occasion their re newal, it is agreed between the high contracting parties that his Majesty the King of the Two Sicilies, in resuming the government of his kingdom (of Naples), shall not in troduce any changes which are not in keeping either with the ancient monarchical institutions or with the principles adopted by his Imperial and Royal Majesty in the internal system of his Italian provinces. Austria had, therefore, positively the right to exact, and even to obtain by force, a modification of the Constitution of the Cortes promulgated at Naples, although no one knew it exactly, even if the former King Ferdinand had published it freely, and had not been compelled to do so. Prussia, France, and Russia, as allies of Austria, had fully the light to lend her their moral and material support against the revolutionary Government of Naples. At the Congress of Troppau, Austria, Prussia, and Russia went very far in principle, as appears from the circular despatch addressed on the Bth of Decem- 963 ber, 1820, by those three powers to their representa tives at the Courts of Germany and the Nurth. lu the précis which accompanied that despatch the events of Spain, of Naples, and of Portugal are designated as objects of the same alliance concluded against the French Revolution, and the hope i 3 therein expressed that that aliiance will also be able "to put a check upon a new domination, not less tyrannical, not less horrible than that of revolt and of crime." The following passage then occurs : The powers have exercised an incontestable right 1 y taking together common measures of safety against States in which the overthrow of the Government, effected by re volt, if not considered as a dangerous example, would have for result a hostile attitude against all legitimate consti u. dons and governments. The exercise of that right becai. • a still more urgent necessity when those who placed them selves in such a situation endeavoured to extend to their neighbours the evils they had drawn down upon them selves, and to propagate revolt and confusion around them. Such a position, such conduct, is an evident infraction of the compact which guarantees to all European Goverr.. ments, besides the inviolability of their territory, the en joyment of peaceful relations which exclude any reciprocal onslaught upon theit rights. The fact is incontestable, and is the point from which the allied Courts started. The Ministers at Troppau, who were possibly provided with full powers from their sovereigns, consequently concerted together upon the line of conduct to follow relative to the States the Governments of which had been violently over thrown, and upon the pacific or coercive measures which might bring back those States into the circle of the Euro pean alliance. Although this précis expressed the hope that England would join the other powers responding to the invitation of the King of Naples, conformable to treaties, and although Lord Castlereagh, then Foreign Secretary, had always shared the views of the three allies, he could not do so on this occa sion ; and in a despatch dated the 19th of January, 1821, he had to declare that the King declined participating in those measures, which he considered diametrically opposed to the fundamental laws of England. _ _ But (continues Lord Castlereagh in his despatch), even did not this decided objection exist, the British Government would not the less be of the opinion that the principles which serve as basis for these measures cannot be admitted with safety as a system of laws between nations. The Government of the King is of the opinion that the adoption of those principles would inevitably sanction, and might eventually lead, on the part of less well-intentioned sovereigns, to an intervention in the internal affairs of States much more frequent and more extensive tban that which he is persuaded it is the intention of the august personages to exercise, or which would be in keeping with the general interests or with the real authority and dignity of independent sovereigns. The Government of his Majesty does not think that, according to existing treaties, the allies have the right to assume any general powers of this descrip tion, nor does it think that they can arrogate to themselves such extraordinary powers in virtue of any new diplomatic transaction between the allied Courts, without attributing to themselves a supre macy incompatible with the rights of other States, or, even on acquiring those powers by the special consent of those same States, without introducing into Europe a federal, oppressive system, which would not only be inefficacious in obtaining its object, but might lead also to the most serious con sequences. These are words of wisdom, full of real respect for international law, for Lord Castlereagh and his colleagues had no sympathy for the revolution and did not favour the revolutionary Government of Naples. But the force of truth made tl e British Government alive to the dangerous consequences of a principle incompatible with the independence of States, and made it reject it. In like manner, in i 823, England refused to parti cipate in an intervention in the internal affairs of Spain. _ _ A passage in the despatch of the :11st of March, 1823, addressed by Lord Canning to Sir C. Stuart, the British Envoy at Paris, explains the sole condi tions under which England considered an interven tion justified. The Minister points out that the British Plenipotentiary at the Congress of Verona did not cooperate in the resolutions taken there, and that Not because he was not authorised to engage the faith of his Government in any hypothetical obligation, but because his Government had, as far back as April, 1820, uniformly recommended to the powers of the alliance to abstain from all intervention in the internal affairs of Spain, and because, having since that same period remained perfectly unconcerned in all transactions which might have taken place between France and Spain, his Government could not form an opinion upon what foundation the Cabinet of the Tuillevies thought of a possible rupture of diplomatic relations with the Court of Madrid, or upon what founda tion an event was feared apparently so improbable as a commencement of hostilities against France by. Spain. The Plenipotentiary of her Majesty (continues the Minis ter) did not see the proofs of the existence of any design on the part of the Spanish Government of invading the i 4.1 4 a 4.