Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-06-24 00:00:00

OUR FOREIGN POLICY.

Tuis is now, more than ordinarily, a matter of the
utmost moment to the welfare of England, and, in
some degree also, to the interests of Europe at large.
The country had become quite satisfied with our
foreign policy in the hands of the late Government,
even under the critical circumstances in which it
had to be directed—with a war raging between
European Powers, with all of which we are on terms
of amicable relationship ; and a war, too, in the
object of which the Government had had occasion
to interpose, without altogether pleasing either
party. Had they who pursued that policy been
allowed the opportunity of still directing the affairs
of this country, all cause of anxiety would probably
have been removed. This opinion is not a mere
speculative one now ; Lord MALMESBURY'S Corres-
pondendence on the subject of the war, which in-
volves that policy infinitely more deeply and more
critically than any other foreign question of the day
can be said to do, has established the fact most con-
clusively. No one of our countrymen can read that '
Correspondence, without being satisfied as to the
foreign policy of the Government from which it has
proceeded. The people's apprehensions, it is true,
were already becoming quieted under the outburst
of the war, by what they saw and learned, through
various means, direct and indirect, of the conduct of
the Foreign Minister, in the difficult and delicate
position in which he was placed by the proceedings
of the belligerents. But the publication of the
Correspondence has once and for ever set at rest any
lingering doubt there might still remain, as to our
security from all risk of being entangled in the war,
so long as the policy was adhered to which had so
tar enabled the Government to preserve a strict

neutrality.
That this view of the case is a correct one, divested
of all mere party feeling, and party prejudice, either
one way or the other, cannot admit of a doubt in the
mind of any calm and considerate observer of what
has passed, with all those details now before him
which the Correspondence presents. Even the Times,
as in a former article on the subject we incidentally
remarked —that journal which has assuredly shown
no favour to Lord MALMESBURY, or to the late
Ministry in any of its departments —has yet, at

. •
length, been constrained to confess, after perusing
the papers we refer to, that the course pursued was
decidedly such as the circumstances of the case best
required, the object being ta'endeavOur to prevent a
war, but, at any rate, if war did ensue, to keep this
country out of it. Of course, we must not expect
such a. journal, after having systematically abused,
and often misrepresented, the late Foreign Secretary,
suddenly .to turn round and praise him up to the
skies. One must make up his mind to 'find it very
restringent even in its fit of candour —very con-
strained even in its confessions of justice. For
—while declaring that " these voluminous
papers really offer no ground of attack against the
late Foreign Secretary and his colleagues," one must
not be, suprised to see it added, "of course they
display a certain bias although when this is ex-
plained, it_is madeevident that it was nothing more
than a propensity in the right, because a patriotic,
direction. t` Lord MALmEsBuRY," it is continued,
"adopts here and there a tenderness of expostulation
in his remonstrances with Austria which 'is not to
be found in the,objurgations addressed to Slrdinia.
His deuunciations of Piedinontese propagandism are
delivered with a rotundity and unction which it
would be vain to seek in his complaints of Adstrian
obstructiveness." But then it is immediately added,
that " this,. however, is only saying that the Govern-
ment represented by Lord MALMESBURY was a Con-
servative Government = a fact which everybody
comprehends." . 'And that, in a word, " taking the
Papers altogether, and allowing for a speculative
partiality from which no earnest statesman would

instanc

be exempt, we are bound to say that the Corres-

pondence presents a pretty faithful reflection of
public opinion in this kingdom." Now this, we say,
from such a quarter, is substantial praise—and,

,
what is More, iiis praise which truth has extorted.
And then the strong presumptive proof that the
leading journal adduces of the impartiality of the
Foreign Secretary in the difficult matter with which
he hid tO 'deal. " It would indeed," it observes, " be
rather hard for
Lord Vi. A --LMESBURY if he failed to
satisfy his oiwn countrymen, for he certainly satisfied
the people",of-no other contry-. The parties whose
hope and interests centre in the decision of the
Italian questreob are numerous. Besides the Govern-
ments of France and Austria, representing, as Count

Now this is the point which it so importantly
concerns the country, at the present moment, to be
satisfied upon. " If our new Ministers keep us free
from entanglements as Lord MALMESBURY and his
colleagues did." This, we say, is the point. And
we must confess that, for our part, we have some
misgivings upon it, if only because our new Ministers
have never appeared thoroughly and heartily to
appreciate that policy. Lord PALMERSTON and Lord
JOHN RUSSELL have habitually disparaged - and
deprecated the foreign policy of Lord DERBY'S
Government. It is true, this might, as the saying is,
be "all in the way of trade." 'Twas their vocation
as a Whig Opposition, perhaps, to do so. Still it
was ominous of mischief. The eagerness with which
Lord PALMERSTON impugned their foreign policy,
as respects the belligerent Powers, in his speech on
the vote of censure, although he had not then had
the opportunity of perusing the Correspondence
relative to their negotiations, showed a feeling that
was anything but favourable to the spirit in which
these ,negociations were conducted. He complained
that they " held out Lostile language to France and
Sardinia, and patronising to Austria, and threatened
France with hostilities, and intimated, in the event
of a war, that they would be energetically engaged
on the side of Austria,"— a complaint, a charge,
which the Correspondence flatly contradicts.
But it served its turn, for the occasion.
' The worst of it is, that it did more than that. It
evinced an unfavourable opinion of the policy that
has kept this country neutral, and preserved it from
entanglements. And what is now to be apprehended
is, that the new Government may perhaps reverse
what Lord PALMERSTON pretended had been the
policy of the late Government, namely, " use
hostile language to Austria, and patronising to
France and Sardinia." Had the Darby Ministry
really acted in any such manner,—vice versa, that is,
they never would have succeeded in establishing
"on the footing of a principle" the pacific spirit
which has maintained our neutrality ; and one's
great fear that the PALMERSTON-RUSSELL Ministry
will fail to preserve our freedom from entanglements,
arises from the only too well-grounded apprehension,
that they are over much disposed, in their own way,
so to act themselves

.--.---....-..-...........-..

THE NAPOLEONIC OVATION- IN ITALY

WE hear 'a great deal, just now, about the popular
enthusiasm with which Louis NAPOLEON has been
received in Italy. The Ithperial progress is described
as one continued ovation, the people everywhere
hailing him as their deliverer, Now, whatever else
this may indicate, it certainly shows the Italian
populace -- for they are principally « the people "
who 'have thrown up their caps and shouted so
lustily at his approach—to be, as indeed it was
notorious they were, in a state of most blissful,
ignorance as to the real character of their new
master. Can there be any faith in7one.:aa a deliverer
from lmperial oppression, who himself, as 'ail
Imperial de4sot, has the people of France under
similar thraldom? Can he be justly regarded as
a friend of humanity, who did not scruple to wade
through slaughter to his present eminence

—the

- .
slaughter of his—own countrymen, in the very streets
of his capital P

Besides, to form any correct judgnient in the
case before us, we must carefully consider what it
,really is that LOUIS NAPOLEON has done in Italy.
We are not denying that the Italians were an
oppressed people,—though not more so than the
French themselves really are. And that the
oppression had created a large amount of popular
'discontent in Italy, there can be no doubt whatever.
In such a case, it was only necessary to raise the
standard of revolt against the oppressor, with any
prospect of success, to gather together the dis-
affected in formidable masses. And this is just
what has been done its Italy. It is an insurgent
population that has welcomed Louis NAPOLEON
as the N4ictorious leader in their cause. They are
the foremost in all the enthusiastic receptions he has
met with. No doubt the more respectable portions
of the Italian population have generally joined
with them. But this was inevitable. They had
no choice. The tide of insurgency had set in, and
they could never resist it. It is under such a state
of things as this, then, that LOUIS NAPOLEON is
the object of so grand an ovation in the country
he has invaded. Were he worthy of it—even such
as it is—one might rejoice at its occurrence, and
have hope as to its results. But it is not so. The
1
tables might be turned upon him,' we have. no
doubt, most completely, in his own country, were

BUOL declared, two antagonist principles, there is the
Government of Sardinia, which blends-with political
Liberalism an evident spirit of aggradisement ; there
is the population of Italy in general, which discerns
in the prospects of revolution a hundred forms of
possible change; and there is the great Confederation
of Germanic nations, which can scarcely forbear from
making the quarrel its own. Now, to none of these
parties did Lord MALMESBURY give any satisfaction."
No--not even to Austria, notwithstanding what his
critic we are quoting had just designated as " the
tenderness of expostulation in his remonstrances
with Austria." For, it is further remarked, that
• " the Austrian Minister, with all his recognition of
Conservative sympathies, was fain to tell our
representative at Vienna that her Majesty's Govern-
ment had addressed its remonstrances to the wrong
quarter. He said that Austria neither deserved nor
required such lectures on her policy as Lord
MALMESBURY had delivered, and that reprimands of
that kind should be directed against France and
Piedmont." In short, it was the even-handed justice
which Lord MALMESBURY was dealing out to all the
Powers with which he was in correspondence, which
made his communications sometimes not very
pleasing, because not very partial, to any of them ;
since they were one and all more or less in the 1
' wrong. The spirit in which he acted throughout is
admitted by the Times to have been a pacific spirit,—
and " we can only wish," says our- contemporary,
"that this pacific spirit, now established on the
footing of a principle, may be both maintained and
propagated." To have thus acted in such a spirit—
to have thus established such a principle, under
circumstances, it is acknowledged on all hands, of no
ordinary difficulty, was certainly no common merit.
" We admit," adds the Liberal journalist, " that such
a spirit may not command much favour among
nations engaged in war ; but if we are successful in
maintaining this policy, and if our new Ministers
keep us free from entanglements, as Lord MALMES-
BURY and his colleagues did, it is to be hoped that
other States may in the end not only appreciate our
principles but adopt them too."