But though the want of confidence appeared to be based on the question of the Reform Bill, there is no doubt that there was a widespread mistrust of the foreign policy of the Government. For some years past, perhaps ever since Mr. Gladstone's celebrated Neapolitan letters in 1851, successive waves of sentiment in favour of Italian independence and unity had passed over the country; and Lord Derby, or Lord Malmesbury, had perhaps fancied that this sentiment might be invoked in their defence. They had not, indeed, taken any overt action, but there was a general idea that they were inclined to favour the designs of Italy and of France. Now, to favour the cause of Italian independence was one thing; to favour the ambitious and grasping schemes of France was another; and the leaders of the Liberal party were not slow to denounce the Government, which--as they alleged--was ready to plunge the country into war for the sake of currying favour with the master of the insolent colonels of 1858. Reeve's own view of the questions at issue may be gathered from the letters which he wrote to the 'Times,' [Footnote: January 19th, _The Policy of France in Italy_; April 28th, _The Policy of France_, both under the signature of 'Senex.'] and more fully, more carefully expressed in the article 'Austria, France, and Italy' in the 'Edinburgh Review' of April. In this he distinctly combats 'what is termed the principle of "nationalities"' as unhistorical. The theory is, he says, 'of modern growth and uncertain application;' and he goes on to show in detail that it is not applicable to any one of the Great Powers of Europe. 'Of all the sovereigns now filling a throne, Queen Victoria is undoubtedly the ruler of the largest number of subject races, alien populations, and discordant tongues. In the vast circumference of her dominions every form of religion is professed, every code of law is administered, and her empire is tesselated with every variety of the human species.... But above and around them all stands that majestic edifice, raised by the valour and authority of England, which connects these scattered dependencies with one great Whole infinitely more powerful, more civilised, and more free than any separate fragment could be; and it is to the subordination of national or provincial independence that the true citizenship of these realms owes its existence.... It is the glory of England to have constituted such an empire, and to govern it, in the main, on just and tolerant principles, as long as her imperial rights are not assailed; when they are assailed, the people of England have never shown much forbearance in the defence of them. Such being the fact, it is utterly repugnant to the first principles of our own policy, and to every page in our history, to lend encouragement to that separation of nationalities from other empires which we fiercely resist when it threatens to dismember our own.'