that we shall be fully a match for them. The country is sound at heart, and there is a gallant public spirit which will show itself at the first intimation of real danger.

On the failure of Lord Minto's mediation the Sicilians proceeded to decree the separation of the crown of Naples and Sicily, and proposed to the Duke of Genoa to become their king, which he, however, declined. The King of Naples, on the arrival of this news, despatched ships and troops against Messina and Palermo. The bombardment of these towns was attended by such acts of violence and cruelty on both sides, that the English and French fleets interfered to procure an armistice. The period for cessation of hostilities expired, however, without any arrangement being arrived at. The fight was renewed; and the Sicilian revolt was finally put down by the middle of the year 1849.

REPEAL OF THE NAVIGATION LAWS.

59

CHAPTER III.

ARBITRATION MOVEMENTS IN ITALY

FRENCH REVOLUTION CHARTIST AGITATION IN LONDON-WAR BETWEEN AUSTRIA AND ITALY-SIR ROBERT PEEL AT THE MANSION HOUSE-FRENCH OCCUPATION OF ROME-DEBATES IN PARLIAMENT CHOLERA— NAPLES.

THE repeal of the Navigation Laws was one of the most prominent measures promised in the Queen's Speech at the opening of the new Parliament. The Government having thus pledged themselves to deal with the question, Lord Palmerston saw that such a step would advantageously affect our foreign relations with maritime powers, and especially with the United States of America. He desired that the obstacles which such a measure would remove from the way of our free intercourse with the latter country should be succeeded by a cordial alliance. The following letter contains his views, and it is interesting as showing how different was the spirit with which he approached these subjects from that usually ascribed to him both at home and abroad. Even as early as 1848, anticipating Cobden and the Declaration of Paris, he was suggesting the principle of arbitration, and advocated the abolition of letters of marque :

C. G.: January 20, 1848.

My dear John Russell,-If, as I hope, we shall succeed in altering our Navigation Laws, and if, as a consequence, Great Britain and the United States shall place their commercial marines upon a footing of mutual equality, with the exception of the coasting trade and some other special matters, might not such an arrangement afford us a good opportunity for endeavouring to carry in some degree into execution the wish which Mr. Fox entertained in 1783, when he wished to substitute close

alliance in the place of sovereignty and dependence as the connecting link between the United States and Great Britain?

A treaty for mutual defence would no longer be applicable to the condition of the two countries as independent Powers; but might they not, with mutual advantage, conclude a treaty containing something like the following conditions:

mediation

1st. That in all cases of difference which may hereafter, unfortunately, arise between the contracting parties, they will, in the first place, have recourse to the (ration) of some friendly Power; and that hostilities shall not begin between them until every endeavour to settle their difference by such means shall have proved fruitless.

2nd. That if either of the two should at any time be at war with any other Power, no subject or citizen of the other contracting party shall be allowed to take out letters of marque from such other Power, under pain of being treated and dealt with as a pirate.

3rd. That in such case of war between either of the two parties and a third Power, no subject or citizen of the other contracting party shall be allowed to enter into the service, naval or military, of such third Power.

4th. That in such case of war as aforesaid, neither of the contracting parties should afford assistance to the enemies of the other, by sea or by land, unless war should break out between the two contracting parties themselves, after the failure of all endeavours to settle their differences in the manner specified in Article 1.

As to this arbitration question, however, he would in practice have tempered theory with prudence. In a debate in 1849 he spoke I might almost say prophetically-of the disadvantages which England would probably have to encounter before such international tribunals. It was on the 12th of June, on a motion of Mr. Cobden's. Lord Palmerston combated vigorously the proposition that we should in any way pledge ourselves to submit to the arbitrament of a third party. He said:

I confess also that I consider it would be a very dangerous course for this country to take, because there is no country which, from its political and commercial circumstances, from its maritime interests, and from its colonial possessions, excites

DEFENCE OF HIS FOREIGN POLICY.

61

more envious and jealous feelings in different quarters than England does; and there is no country that would find it more difficult to discover really disinterested and impartial arbiters. There is also no country that would be more likely than England to suffer in its important commercial interests from submitting the case to arbiters not disinterested, not impartial, and not acting with a due sense of their responsibility.

The fact is that, in weighing our position, whenever we have to consider such a proposal, we must not forget that no powerful nation can ever expect to be really loved or even liked by any other. The interests and views of nations perpetually clash, and men are apt to be angry with those who stand between them and the accomplishment of their wishes.

At the outset of the session a most violent onslaught was made upon Lord Palmerston and his policy by Messrs. Anstey and Urquhart, and an impeachment before a committee of inquiry demanded in two speeches which occupied nearly the whole of a Wednesday's sitting. He had scarcely begun his reply when the sitting came to an end by the six o'clock rule; and in the stirring times that were coming on the House had something better to do than to listen to the outpourings of such men, who for many years would insist that in all his actions he was the secret agent of Russia.

The few words, however, which he had time to say contained the following manly and statesmanlike declaration:

I am conscious that during the time for which I have had the honour to direct the foreign relations of this country, I have devoted to them all the energies which I possess. Other men might have acted, no doubt, with more ability. None could have acted with a more entire devotion both of their time and faculties. The principle on which I have thought the foreign affairs of this country ought to be conducted is the principle of maintaining peace and friendly understanding with all nations, as long as it was possible to do so consistently with a due regard to the interests, the honour, and the dignity of this country. My endeavours have been to preserve peace. All the Govern

ments of which I have had the honour to be a member have succeeded in accomplishing that object.

I hold, with respect to alliances, that England is a Power sufficiently strong to steer her own course, and not to tie herself as an unnecessary appendage to the policy of any other Government. I hold that the real policy of England is to be the champion of justice and right; pursuing that course with moderation and prudence, not becoming the Quixote of the world, but giving the weight of her moral sanction and support wherever she thinks justice is, and whenever she thinks that wrong has been done.

There

As long as she sympathises with right and justice, she will never find herself altogether alone. She is sure to find some other State of sufficient power, influence, and weight to support and aid her in the course she may think fit to pursue. fore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow. And if I might be allowed to express in one sentence the principle which I think ought to guide an English Minister, I would adopt the expression of Canning, and say that with every British Minister the interests of England ought to be the shibboleth of his policy.

He used also frequently to combat the romantic notion that nations or governments are much or permanently influenced by friendships, or that you could apply to the intercourse of nations the same general rules as to the intercourse of individuals. The only thing which makes one Government follow the advice or yield to the counsel of another is the hope of benefit to accrue from adopting it or the fear of the consequences of opposing it.

At the opening of 1848 Italy was agitated by the most violent heavings. To the thirst for social amelioration and political power were added aspirations for national unity. The reforms of Pio Nono, and the democratic concessions of Charles Albert and of the King of Naples, had so strongly stimulated the revolutionary passions, that it seemed only a question of