The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-10-30 00:00:00

WANISD A MINISTERIAL POLICY.

WILL nobody inform the people of England as to
the views of European policy entertained by the
present Cabinet ; or must we conclude that it is
entirely innocent of a policy of any kind ? Either
alternative is most mischievous. Is it safe for
the people of England either to remain in igno-
rance of the mane likely to be pursued by the
Government in the present highly critical junc-
ture of affairs, or to tolerate that supineness and
stolid indifference on the part of Ministers which
ignores the legitimate influence of this country in
the counsels of Europe, and subjects us to the
danger of being suddenly dragged into a snare
prepared for us by the artifice of our enemies ?
We cannot afford to be without a policy, neither
can we trust the present administration to conceal
from review and criticism the principles of action,
if any—by which they ratan to regulate their con-
duct in connection with the great events now
being enacted in Italy. The presenti Cabinet
wae compelled tardily to confess that they had
permitted England to be betrayed in the matter of
Nice and Savoy,—a wound not likely to be
speedily healed up,—and it now femains for the
people of England to see to it that, through the
same incompetency on the part of our Foreign
Minister the insult is not repeated on a larger
scale by their infliction of a more aggravating
calamity.

Since Parliament was closed, the Italian revo-
lution has entirely changed its phase. The
Kingdom of Naples and the States of the Church
have been successfully invaded. The Great
Powers have more or less directly, and each in
their own several fashions, protested against the
policy of Sardinia. France has been flooding
Rome with troops ; Austria and Sardinia have
been concentrating their forces on their several
frontiers ; Austria has effected a peaceful revolu-
tion within her own empire; the Great Northern
Powers have met in private conference; and the
Italians unmistakably threaten a postponed
attack on Rome and on Venetia, which is con-
ceivable only on the faith of French connivance
and support. Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S despatch to
Sir JAMES HUDSON uttered but a faint and
uncertain sound, and is, besides, now ren-
dered out of date by the progress of events.
The rumours as to the result of the Coblentz
interview are neither authentic nor intelligible.
In short, since the session was concluded we
have been and now are without a word or hint
to guide us as to the real position in which we
stand to/yards the other powers of Europe, and
the part we are to play under the probable con-

tingencies of the future. Neither has this state
of matters arisen from any want of opportunity
on the part of ministers to enunciate their
opinions on the all-important topic of the day.
Nay more, we have seen Lord PALMERSTON
allude to this very subject the other day in a
manner so unsatisfactory as to attract our atten-
tion only more strongly to the fact that either
he and his colleagues have no fixed policy, or if
they have any, that they wish to keep the people
in the dark as to its true scope and tendency.
Referring to foreign affairs, Lord PALMERSTON
at Leeds, the other day, made certain statements,
which are remarkable chiefly for their inaccuracy
or obscurity. Thus, he stated that we have been
successful in aiding and assisting to spread poli-
tical liberty in other countries beyond our own,
but "not by armed interference;" and, by way of
illustration, he cited the cases of Belgium and
Spain Now, is not our armed interference in
both countries notoriously a matter of history ?
Who delivered the Belgians from the Dutch ?
Did we not advise and concur with the French
in taking possession of Antwerp ? Was not this,
to all intents and purposes, an armed inter-
ference on our part ? Who delivered Queen
ISABELLA from the Carlists ? For what purpose
did we raise the Spanish Legion, and send out
Comrriodore JOHN HAY with a fleet ? What
comes, then, of Lord PALMERSTON'S assertion
that in Belgium and in Spain we have promoted
the establishment of the present Government
without " armed interference Then, again,
what did his lordship mean when he' stated that
we leave the Italians to deal with their own
affairs, and all we hope and wish is, that other
countries should follow our example, and that the
people of these regions shot :Tti andarefi to
arrange their internal affairs in a inaddeY Nithleft
shall seem to them best adapted to theii welfare
and happpiness ? Have not the Governmen*
least connived at the illegal formation of a
British Legion for Italy, and the clandestine
purchase and despatch of arms, ammunition,
ordnance, and ships for the rebellious sub-
jects of a Power with which we were at
peace P .We are not ignorant of the fact
of French intervention in Italy, or of the
claims, of the French Emperor to be the moderator
of that revolution of which, in
,point of fact, he
was the chief instigator. Have we said or done
anything to shew that the withdrawal of that
" armed interference" by Louis NAPOLEON is
" all we hope and wish for ?" Can the 'ltalians
arrange their internal affairs as they think best
while that " armed interference" continues ? If
Lord PALMERSTON'S words have any consistent
meaning, it can only be that we are determined
not to allow Prance either secretly or openly to
continue or to extend her present " armed inter-
ference." Lord JOHN Russnr, has lectured Sar-
dinia as to the impropriety of"attacking Austria?
but at the same time he admits that her only'
chance of doing so is when backed by. French-
forces. Then, why not speak our mind to rvance,
and tell her plainly and firmly that her further'
" armed interference" is insufferable ? ])o we tzl
to bully the smaller power, while we are afraid
to lift up our eyes to meet the stern glance of her-
powerful ally and prompter in the-se unprinciple
and perilous acts of aggression ? In brief, it is
not true that we have left the Italians, to deal*
with their own affairs; nor does it appear that
any weight attaches to the,, expressed hope and
wish that other countries may do so. The facts
are all against Lord PALMERSTON ; and we are
reduced to the conclusion that he is either ashamed
of his want of a policy or is afraid to avow it in.
all its naked ugliness.