- PALMERSTON ON THE REFERENCE TO CONGRESS. IT is obviously
impossible that we could withhold the expression of our satisfaction at one passage in Lord Palmerston's speech of Tuesday night. Just before the war broke out, Mr. Disraeli made the rather serious mistake of speaking of " dignified conciliation " as having characterized Austria, while "suspicious and equivocal conduct' characterized Sardinia. We have throughout the pre- sent conflict endeavoured to keep the case, as between Austria, France, and Sardinia, clear to our readers, by the simple re- capitulation of facts; and it is with the greatest gratification that we see a statesman so influential as Lord Palmerston bearing same facts most distinctly in view. It follows, indeed, from his knowledge of the states in question, of the course of events, and his own clear-sightedness. He assumes that if Ministers had been aware of events as they were going on, Mr. Disraeli could not have talked of the "dignified conciliation" of Austria or the " equivocal and suspicious " conduct of Sardinia. We incline to doubt, however, whether that language was not partly used in the spirit of those who praise a spoiled child for the purpose of in- ducing him to behave better. Austria proved to be a child too much spoiled for coaxing, even of that judicious kind. The mis- taken notion of Ministers was, as Lord Palmerston said, that the danger of war arose from France and Sardinia ; whereas, as we have maintained throughout, the danger of war in the first in- stance arose from the repeated refusal of Austria, not only to adopt measures of conciliation in Italy according to the advice urged by Lord Clarendon,—not only to assume a more conciliatory spirit towards the Italians and their friends,—not only to abstain from instigating other Governments to a course of dangerous tyranny and hateful injury, but to do so modest a thing as to re- main within the bounds of established law. It was the refusal of Austria to keep within her own territories, and within the limits of her treaties, which endangered the; and now the friends of Austria turn round and talk to us about "respecting the trea- ties of 1815 " !
On Tuesday night Mr. Disraeli recapitulated some of the latest facts to prove that he had not taken too favourable a view of the prospects of peace, and his statement is indeed remarkable— "It so happened that a few moments only before I rose to make that statement a -telegram arrived from Lord Cowley, which was immediately for- warded to me here, informing us that the Emperor of the French had en- tirely adopted the principle of disarmament before the Congress, which was one which Austria had insisted on as the foundation of a satisfactory settle- ment. And not only that, but that Count Walewski had that moment tele- graphed to Sardinia, urging her, in a manner which he felt she could not resist, to accept the same principle. Was I not justified, then, under the circumstances, in assuring the House that there was still a prospect of peace before us."
The statement is Mr. Disraeli's. Our readers will remember that Sardinia did adopt the advice urged upon her so powerfully by Count Walewski. But who then was it that broke the peace? It was Austria, who, while in terms assenting to a Congress, arro- gantly and illegally took upon herself to adopt a separate course towards Sardinia, and to make a short cut by a process of coercion at the very object which she had virtually consented to refer to Congress.
So long as Austria was alleging that her treaty rights in Lom- bardy and Venice were to be invaded, the Government might have offered a moral support, and as Lord Palmerston repeats, might fairly have said—" Go into Congress ; let all the great Powers of Europe assemble and we will stand by you in negotiations, in maintaining your unquestionable treaty rights." This is un- doubtedly the point where the Austrians deviated into lawlessness and wrong, and it is the standing point by which any authorities who would maintain peace through justice in Europe must still abide.
We the more positively insist upon the incidents of the pre- sent position, because they mark the principles in which England can still interfere beneficially. The Russian Government has not suffered itself to be misconstrued by leaving its acts to be inter- preted alone through its enemies or its silence, it has transmitted a powerfully written oiroular to the German Courts, representing that non-intervention in the Italian war is still the only safe po- licy for Germany. In fact the Russian Government denies the right of the Germanic Confederation to interfere in a war, which. Austria has commenced, respecting one of her non-Germanic possessions, and, says the Russian Government, if Germany should go to the aid of Austria in this war the political equih- brium resulting from the treaties of 1815 will be destroyed. It may truly be said that the irregular, violent, and illegal course taken by Austria has destroyed those treaties for her and those who become accomplices with her would equally share in her for- feiture of the rights acquired under those treaties though they might still be held bound by their liabilities. The whole ten- dency of these remarks is to point to a Congress as the ultimate arbiter of the present contest, begun through Austria's violation of treaty law and international oomity. And if any of the powers of Europe desire to stand right in the Congress to which they have given their consent, they must observe the rules of in- ternational law as well as of common justice in their behaviour to each other. It is evident that sooner or later the Congress must be held ; and it is important for the interests of Europe, and of England, that, keeping that event in view, the Government of this country should preserve a position correct and morally strong. But it can only do so by recognizing facts as they exist.
Previous page
