TOPICS OF THE DAY.
ITALY AND THE OPPOSITION.
THE debate on Tuesday night did service both to. Italy and her Majesty's Government, but it did a great disservice to the Oppo-
sition. No one has any title to object to such discussions but the leader of the country party and the country party itself, for to none others has it done any damage. The debate has served the Government, because it has brought out, with more distinct- ness than ever, their truly national and comprehensively Euro- pean policy ; and it has served Italy, because it gave occasion for an emphatic repetition of the fundamental principle that every nation has a right to regulate its own internal affairs—the prin- ciple of the statesmen of 1688, the principle of the Whigs in 1815, and the principle of the Liberals in 1860. It is for maintaining this principle, ever since they came into office, with unflinching firmness, that the Government have incurred the censures of the Opposition.
But the Government have been served by those censures, since they are not levelled at the British Government alone, but at the great principle at the base of our institutions, and at the instincts and convictions of the British people. As censures they concern us no further ; but as an indication of the course which the leaders of the Opposition, boasting itself to be more national than the na- tion, and reprobating a treaty with France on ultra-nationalistic grounds, they do concern us, for viewed in that light they afford a measure of the statesmanship of Mr. Disraeli and his late col- leagues, especially of the Malmesbury section of pro-Austrians. The accusation is, that the Government have rendered the an-
nexation of Savoy inevitable. How ? By their policy in Italy. According to Mr. Disraeli's version of that policy, the Government have promoted the annexation of Tuscany, Modena, Parma, and the Romagna to Piedmont, not by direct interference, but by op- posing the designs of France ; helping to prevent her from form- ing an Italian Confederation, from restoring the Dukes, from establishing a Kingdom of Central Italy side by side with Austria, Naples, the Pope, and Piedmont. And when we come to look into the nature of the opposition to France and the interference in Italy, we find it limited to the giving of advice when advice was asked, to the statement of opinions when projects were submitted, and to the declaration at all times and seasons, that the Italians have the right to settle their own affairs without French or Aus- trian, or British intervention. If Mr. Disraeli's criticisms, de- nunciations, and prophecies are worth anything, they warrant the interference that the Opposition would not have consulted the Italian people at all, would not have left them to manage their own affairs, but would have supported, in succession, all the pro- jests of Count Walewski and M. Thouvenel—for fear of giving offence to France, shall we say, or from a desire to please Austria? Mr. Disraeli's argument is clear and explicit. It is that British policy, as regards Italy, should be regulated by that of France. Whether the policy of England be right or wrong, he does pot venture to say, and for a good reason ; from his point of view, it does not matter whether it be right or wrong. " France told you that if Sardinia were aggrandized she should claim Savoy. Sar- dinia is to be aggrandized—that is your work—you encouraged the Italians to manage their own concerns, you insisted that their wishes should be consulted, you refused to aid the French Em- peror — therefore, you are to blame if Savoy is annexed to France." Such is Mr. Disraeli's position. He speaks of the danger of raising the question of natural boundaries, and he lays the responsibility at the door of the Ministry. The inference is irre- sistible that the Opposition would have done anything rather than that question should be raised ; would have stifled the new-born liberties of the Italian people, and handed them over to their old rulers. Would such a policy have been English ?
We undertake to say that no Opposition ever before assumed such a crouching attitude in the British House of Commons. Mr. Bright's vulgar speech about Savoy alone suggests itself for com- parison. His cry of " Perish Savoy ! " may be paralleled by Mr. Disraeli's speech, which is one reiterated assault upon national independence in foreign politics. Mr. Horsman wants an alliance with Prussia against France; Mr. Kinglake suggests a combined remonstrance ; Mr. Seymour Fitzgerald thirsts—we beg pardon, thirsted—for something more than rhetoric, for a sort of league or round robin, with England as ringleader. Mr. Disraeli declines to protest, to remonstrate, to league—he sanctions nothing but abnegation of national views and principles. If you do what you can to give the national Italian party fair play you are wrong, not because the course is wrong in itself, not because it is unfair or unstatesmanlike, but because it leads France to take Savoy ; and having taken that course, you are wrong in refraining from shower- ing repeated protests, for six months, against the possible action of France in a certain contingency which might never have arrived. The crime of the Government in the eyes of Mr. Disraeli is, that they have not joined with France or Austria, or both, in imposing what rulers they pleased on the people, and what boundaries they pleased on the different states. That is a crime of which the British, as well as the Italian people, will readily absolve them.
Lord Bolingbroke said of one of his opponents that a compli- ment from him was like the warning of a clock, a sure sign that he was going to strike. That is Mr. Whiteside's case. Last week, he went out of his way to applaud Lord John Russell's de- spatches on the question of Savoy. This week, he turns round
and assails him for negligence, and do nothingness ; accuses him of recommending universal suffrage, which he did not recommend, and of keeping the French Government in ignorance of those very views which Mr. Whiteside had applauded so cordially but a few short days before. These contradictions, painful evidences of human weakness, would be incredible were they not stamped on the broad sheet of the Times. They may be denied, but the denial would be like that of Mr. Seymour Fitzgerald, who says he did not propose a protest of the great Powers against France, although words to that effect, as reported by the Times, are con- firmed by the recollection of Lord John Russell, and actually called forth a reluctant and haughty apologyfrom Mr. Disraeli him- self, who saw fit to cover the retreat of his junior partner from a rashly assumed position.
The plain fact is, that the course of the Government has been practical and consistent throughout. When they heard of the projected annexation of Savoy, they frankly stated their objections. When the project was abandoned in July, and its revival rested upon the hypothetical aggrandizement of Sardinia, relying as they had a right to do, upon the broad and explicit declaration of July, they waited until the project assumed a practical shape, and then they repeated, in language as strong but not stronger, the objec- tions made in July. As the project came fully int:view, they obtained from the Emperor a promise that he would not proceed without the assent of the people of Savoy and their King, and without consulting the Great Powers—a promise Lord Palmerston understands as meaning " without obtaining the consent of the Great Powers." Then they laid the whole case before those Powers, inviting their attention thereto. Certainly, if measured i
by Lord Malmesbury's fussy and flighty diplomacy in the spring of 1859, the steady and practical proceedings of the Government are far below the standard ; but we greatly mistake the character of our countrymen if they prefer the mode of handling delicate questions, as displayed in the Portuguese business, or the mode of dealing with the vaster issues raised by the approach of the Italian war, to the mode of dealing with them since the war came to an end.
We cannot pass from the subject of Tuesday night's debate without calling attention to the generous recognition of the noble conduct of Italy and her prominent statesmen which found a place in Lord Palmerston's speech. " I cannot but think,"he said, "that Italy, which has displayed.such public spirit, and which has developed so much talent and patriotism—is that Italy, of which England may be proud of having given her moral weight and influence to, in order to bring such a state of things about." He derived from the contrast between the Italian statesmen of 1848 and those of our day the most sanguine hopes for the fu- ture ; and then he paid a deserved tribute to the greatest :—
" I will only say with regard to that Italian statesman whose name has been often mentioned in this debate, Count Cavour, that though there may be those whose views he has defeated, and whose policy he has thwarted, yet that the future will respect him as one of the most distinguished patriots that ever adorned the history of that country—a country which is under as great obligation to him as any nation ever owed any one of its members; and feeling this and the success which has attended his policy, he need not be disturbed by the criticism which his public actions may in any country have occasioned."
But while we remember the merits of Camillo Cavour, we must
not forget Massimo d'Azeglio. If the Sardinian Premier is the. Peel of his country, the Governor of Milan is its Lord John Russell. When Count Cavour was still a Conservative, the Mar- quis d'Azeglio was foremost in the patriot ranks, stimulating his countrymen to exertion, strengthening them in defeat, consoling them under misfortunes, and greatest, perhaps, when he showed himself as the fearless adviser of his sovereign in moments when the pressure of calamity and external arrogance was at its highest point. These are services which deserve to be remembered— services to the Italian cause which Count Cavour has been the first to recognize, and which deserve what they have won—the gratitude and affection of the Italian people, and their gallant King.
Previous page
