The Express.
London, England, 1860-10-30 00:00:00

NNW woltic IT ML CIA UMW
No. le al. Al Os Tor ivied; te Ihe pitillabed is limier-
am DM 1. 11111 0111111•11.801
GRE•T ZIPICT•TIONS.
• Kew Sind Nay. N7 C11••6• DOCZNMS.

§:eheria'S HALL RISTAIIRANT,
/14.5141.11•11 Old P/W/dar.
DisslN IN% Mama. &a ladle%
am, Glosthers. 116111ALD, Prirfter•

gbe enneos.

oOIIIIOPONDERIS.
l by "The " Labs li
Inc Ow fit pi,
"a 11112149 al th• 4•00. 14.111=e1s4rosb by Two
iiisiss.

RATNARW IT.
Tani NNW& TRW LADY DT LYONS. 7117•0,
X Ilihropses awl Mows; 111MANF 61.1.M.M.—THR
IDIMI ANDAMAN& Wr. J.DroNstom.—AM TR' BUN AND
TIN WIND. TM lallweiss.—Commiso MT.

names%
TRIP Erin's.% IMAM MTS. Mr. P. Mathews sad Miss
Manny —111:V UAL likams. W. lacy, Meadows, Offltnal,
amd Wainer. Mira EWA sal lase ladereq. AAA TYR
712.61' NIGHT. Ms. A. Mints mod Illis It HAM&

LYCIVM.
ETEIII7II. Till SCHOOL POI SCANDAL. Wiessn. 0.
Vin IL Naval% mod Mon; Mn. Kimile. Mee H. Torsos.
llla~— And THY LS= VAUDILLVIL ISsrev.
VIII" arrester. Hathsr, sod Camplooll: Madems Odom.

iIIITANNIA.
US Vaasa. IILY OVON•01. thaan. liamaliral
Diersoced t dr L Tamar art Mr • Iore.—NIATIUL
DELL RUM me uw. Wasiar.—•al MT LAI2 NIGHT
ILND TIM La/7 MOZNINCL—OrraIas at Wilmot 6.

MUM WArn AT LONDON 1121IMIL
Tail DAT —rang ft as......thausse. S. U.
TAlMMV—lllisais, fh. tia.....Abwrias, Ili. U..

LONDON, rusarmr, OCT. 90.

Sour of the ministerial journals of Paris pro-
fess to he greatly relieved by the assurances given
in our columns last week that all the surmises of
pledges, agreements, or change of policy resulting
from the interviews of Cobknts, were mere moon-
shine. But surely their doubts and suspicions
were wholly unnecessary. If there be one cha-
racteristic of English statesmen more than another,
it is perseverance to the end in • policy seriously
and deliberately adopted and well founded on the
public interests. From the year 1831 down to
the present time the policy of England towards
Italy has never varied, not even when Lord
Mei.wn+at-•v gave feeble, uncertain and vacil-
lating expression to it. It simply consists in
claiming for the Italians good government, and
the right in them to realize it by such means as
they might select and in the form they prefer.
Not even when there were reasonable appro.
beimions that the partial success of the Italian
cause would largely transfer to France the autho-
rity in Italy which Austria had previously exer-
cised, did England hang back. Nor did the an-
nexation of Savoy and Nice to France, and the
dangers to Europe of the new delimitations of the
French Empire, and the principle on which they
were justified, abate one iota of the interest Eng-
land took in the cense of Italy. The expedition
to Sicily was condemned by France.; the invasion
of Naples, Umbria, and the Marches was followed
by the withdrawal of the French Minister from
Turin. Russia denounced the injury done
to monarchy in the abandonment of the
80tR150,18 ; and Prussia read Count CAVOUI
a lesson on the abstract principles of
international law, a rigid adherence to
which would have produced anarchy in Naples,
and left the revolutionary elements there free from
all control In the midst of this confusion, Eng-
and, we venture to remind our Paris contempo-
raries, never flinched from her established policy ;
she recognised the right of the Italians to achieve
their own independence and freedom by their own
exertions; she expressed no disapprobation of what
they were doing ; she kept her ministers and
diplomatic agents at their poets ; she did not apply
to an exceptional state of things wise maxima of
law, well suited to a normal condition ; she sought
no
combination with other States either to overawe
France or control Italy ; and on the eve of the
Italian triumph she does not endeavour to arrest or
muddy it by proposing a l'ongreas of Five Great
Powers, three of whom have no great love for
liberty anywhere, at home or abroad.
This being the course England hsa, uuder the
present administration, pursued towards Italy, in
contrast with the policy of the other Great Powers,
appreheosions ebonies, or variations, or modifi-
cations in the English treatment of the Italian
questiou to follow the visit of Queen Ytcroat• and
her Foreign Minister to Coblenta, were certainly
very idle and unnecessary. On Italy the opinions
of Lords Pai.airenrom and Joins Reesau. have
been firm, consistent, and determined through all
the vicissitudm and trials of the last thirty years ;
at times those opinion@ have been denounced as
rash, at others as dangerous ; but it was not when
their success was within grasp that they were
likely to be abandoned or modified. The diffi-
culties of • etnapboated situation may at times
make Englishmen wonder in what form of policy
duties arising from very opposite
will be reconciled, and the sera
public jealous for the full representation of its
conviction. will find expression in the press. But
that is a domestic &Hair, and can in nowise
warrant the suspicions of a change in our national
policy, which we are told have prevailed abroad.
That momentary apprehension has, however,
happily passed away ; and the tint question for
the public to consider is the French proposal of •
Congress. To that proposition England, we re-
iterate, can give no support or encouragement ;
because for a simple and natural, it substitutes •
distorted or artificial view of Italy. We see Italian
independence, unity, and freedom on the point of
triumphing by the efforts of Italy itself. Why should
we hesitate to acknowledge and recognise the legal
consequences of the triumph T We acknowledged
the independence of the South American Republica
immediately that independence had become a fact
in the world's history ; we acknowledged the
independence of Greece and of Belgium without
assembling European Congresses; we recogided:
the reigning dynasties of Spain and Por-
tugal long before they were acknowledged by the
Northern Powers ; we do not profess to be mem-
bers of any Areopagus for the readjustment of
Europe ; our alliance is not a combination for the
riven:uncut of the world ; we respect is others
the right of doing whet we did moieties in 1688,
rrabe• did In 1831:0, In 18414, and 1852.
Why should we deny to Italy that which we have
yi.).1e.1 awl neenr 'rrt to all the weld bi•iidesf
Why should there be one rule for the strugglm for