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

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) a4' .- •
-fuge, and that they can beg • • .
ofessions into aporoval
,is . - ...,, , hi
. rip
ey would reject with con --%:.• .
g
a manly and honest av 9' t k....:: ..A,4 r... 1
L.:: V` C lIIP
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

482

without scruple, has been singularly exem-
plified this week in their treatment of Mr.
HENRY BERKELEY'S motion for the Ballot. By
151 to 111 the House,of Commons rejected the
proposition, and declined honouring Air.
BERKELEY with a lengthened discussion et his
motion. A leading organ on Wednesday tack
contemptuous notice of the " Ballot" debate,
and made mcirjr'with• Mr. pERgrLRA speech,
in a style that cannot lie very flattering to
that gentleman. It is true that the
" Ballot " was " once great.," but that was long
• before it fell into Mr. BERKELE►Y'S Bands.
From BENTHAM to BERKELEY iS a fall with a
. vengeance. Mr. MILL disserted upon it, and
Mr. GEORGE GROTE, in its support, spoke clas•
. sical speeches, which were never variegated
with metaphors from Boxiana. Sir WILLIAM
MOLESWORTH discussed it like a philosopher,
and adorned the subject with his deep know
ledge; but if we are to judge by the eagerness
with which Mr. BERKELEY pounced on the
coarse metaphor of the Premier taken from
the prize-ring, and hunted it to death, talking
of " the lemon and the sponge," it would seem
that " the science of self-defence " is more
familiar to this illustrious senator than the

arguments in favour of the cowardly secret
voting he advocates. Well may the Times
say, with the prospect of Mr. BERKE-
LEY as an annual exhibitor on this question,
associated with the advocacy of GROTE, MOLES-
WORTH, and MACAULAT,—" The debate on the
" Ballot is now found to be a periodical humi-
" Haden," a sentiment in which we heartily

agree ; and judicious critics of all parties, not
to speak of " puny whipsters," will not differ
from us there. We were present when
Viscount Howicx (now Earl GREY) told the
House of Commons, in 1839, that Lord MEL-
BOURNE'S Cabinet had made " Ballot" an
" open question," in the hopes of retarding it.
The Radicals have taken a hint from
his Lordship, and transferred " Ballot" to
Mr. BERKELEY, in the hopes of its being
awkwardly strangled in his unskilful hands.
But, even if the question were given into
' the custody of some memter able to grace it
with eloquence, and enforce it with logical
• argument, the subject would make no way.
Ballot was a crotchet of the extinct " Philoso-
phical Radicals." It was un-English, and that
was a merit in the eyes of a clique of closet
politicians who had a speculative love for

revolution, and no practical capacity for
wielding the emotions of a community. The
age is, indeed, striding forward with rapidity,
when many of the once prominent names of
p_hilosophical Radicalism are already forgotten
We cannot recollect when last we met any
huzzlepated gentleman looking oracular, as
e spoke of " Bentham." Doctor Bowaixo is
knight, with a good place at the other side
of the globe; I\l r. GROTE is preparing a volume
on Plato and Aristotle ; and Ballot has come
down to Mr. HENRY BERKELEY
It is curious how the Liberals took up such
a metaphysical abstraction as the Ballot.
They never cared about it at heart ; but they
wanted a hustings' "cry," so they yelled against
" intimidation." They vote for it still with
evident reluctance, but they know perfectly
well that the Whigs will never concede the
Ballot. The Premier calls it " nonsense; " Lord

J. RUSSELL made his best speeches against it;
SYDNEY SMITH squibbed against it with vastly
quizzical effect ; even the Greys now disown
the crotchet. Sir CoRNEWALL LEWIS, also,
voted against it the other night ; so did Mr
T 411oUCHERE, Mr. S. WHITBREAD, Mr. J.
WlLsox, and last, not least, Mr. W. G. HATTER.
W., need nut point out the changes of opinion
here from the division-lists of bygone years.
IL has long been what the Germans call " an
' open secret," that in its interior counsels the
Whig families have peremptorily ruled once
for all against succeeding upon the Ballot ;
Ind this bringi us to the condition of the
Waig oligarchy and its Radical allies, who
keep it in power.
An active organ of Radicalism alluded on
Thursday to the fact that, out of the majority
of 151 members who voted against Ballot
this week, not less than 115 of the whole num-
ber were supplied from the Conservative
party; while the Premier could not collect

b