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
strong 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 step 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,',4147af4t)
Galle . -I.l4.irtsi
Hells. • ` "
•
InIFIrT `" Mb
More
.144. ....7/044
4:E. 4;