Page images
PDF
EPUB

CHAPTER III.

FOREIGN POLICY.

Motions by Earl Grey and Sir James Mackintosh, relative to the Congress and the Affairs of Naples.-Motion by Sir Robert Wilson-By the Marquis of Lansdown-By Mr Hutchinson, on the State of Europe-By Mr Stuart Wortley, on the Declarations of the Congress-By Lord W. Bentinck, on the Affairs of Sicily.

As soon as the termination of the proceedings against the Queen had tranquillized the nation upon that agitating question, the attention of British statesmen was powerfully directed to the great movements taking place on the continent; to the principles professed by the combination of the great powers, and above all, to the active measures which they were taking in furtherance of them. On one side, it was urged, that Britain could never view with indifference events so deeply affecting the cause of liberty; that she ought not to regard tamely the measures in progress for putting down, by military force, every attempt to establish a representative government, and limit the monarchical power. Ministers, on the other hand, represented, that having disavowed generally the principle of interference, and declared their determination to be no party to any measure founded upon it, they had done all that the circumstances either called for or admitted.

VOL. XIV. PART I.

It has been seen how, at the very opening of Parliament, the discussion on the affairs of Foreign Europe formed a prominent feature. After several preliminary motions and notices, the subject was brought into full consideration on the 19th February by Earl Grey in the House of Peers, and on the 21st, by Mr Tierney in the House of Commons. The ostensible object in both, was a motion for the production of papers, but the actual purpose, to obtain for each party an opportunity of expressing their sentiments at full length on so interesting a topic.

Earl Grey began with taking a view of previous proceedings. He had on the first day of the session availed himself of the earliest opportunity afforded him, to direct the attention of their lordships to this important subject; and on a subsequent day he had inquired whether the representation issued by the allied courts on the subject of the Neapolitan revolution did correctly and truly state the dis

F

position and engagements of his Majesty's government with respect to such events as those which had taken place. The answer given on that occasion by the noble lord opposite appeared to be in a great degree satisfactory. He said that the document which had appeared in the public papers, though substantially true, was in some respects not correct. He disclaimed the engagements to which it was therein stated that this government was a party; and he disclaim ed the principle of interference with the internal arrangements of independent states-stating, what every one would admit, that circumstances might arise by which such interference would be justified. The noble lord then proposed to lay before the House a document, containing a full explanation of the conduct pursued by his Majesty's government. (This was the circular dispatch of Lord Castlereagh to British ministers at foreign courts, dated 19th January. See Appendix.) He could not consider it as satisfactory; yet it certainly contained a disclaimer, though cold and feeble, of the principle of interference. Notwithstanding this, he could not forbear animadverting on the circular of the allied powers. The claim set up was nothing less than the right of a general superintendence of the states of Europe, and of the suppression of all changes in their internal government, if those changes should be hostile to what the Holy Alliance called the legitimate principles of government. It mattered not how general the wish of the people for the change might be; it mattered not, however inoffensive that change might be to other states; it mattered not that every people were acknowledged to possess the right of correcting the abuses of their government, and rescuing themselves from political degradation. Yet those

monarchs who had assumed the censorship of Europe, and sat in judgment on the internal transactions of other states, took upon themselves to summon before them the monarch of an independent state; to pronounce judgment on a constitution which, in concert with his people, he had given to his country, and threatened to enforce their judgment by arms. This was plainly declaring that all changes of government which did not square with their ideas of propriety, were to be put down. Nothing could be more unjust, nothing more atrocious, than this principle. A number of other documents held the same language, particularly a paper in the Berlin Court Gazette of the 19th December, of whose official character there could be no doubt. In that paper, the new constitution was declared to be the product of unlawful power, and it was distinctly stated that "the monarchical principle rejects every institution which is not determined upon and accomplished by the monarch himself of his own free will." Were this principle to be successfully maintained, the triumph of tyranny would be complete, and the chains of mankind would be riveted for ever. Was there, then, to be no improvement in government except such as was granted as a matter of favour? Hopeless, indeed, was the condition of the human race, if they were to obtain no political rights, except such as sprung from the benevo lence of sovereigns of the monarchs who composed the Holy Alliance. His lordship remarked on the date of the circular, so long after the principles of the allied powers had been clearly declared, and only a few days before the meeting of parliament, as if it had been with the express view of providing for that crisis. The conduct of ministers towards Naples, had consisted in a suspension of all ami

cable intercourse. They had refused to acknowledge the Neapolitan minister, and to accredit a minister to the court of Naples. They had sent a squadron to the bay of Naples, one of the vessels of which bore the ensign of one of the powers which had summoned the King of Naples to their bar. The paper in question was involved in all the frosts, and chilled with all the fogs, of winter. There was an evident bias in favour of the Holy Alliance, inconsistent even with the pretended system of cold neutrality. Amicable relations were without scruple continued with the court of Spain, after Ferdinand had sub. verted that constitution which this country was bound to support. There was no accounting for this distinction, but upon the supposition that ministers had one rule for revolutions in favour of liberty, and another for revolutions in favour of despotism. The latter were by every means to be encouraged, and the former discountenanced, and, if possible, punished. Ministers had thought it necessary to guard against nothing, except plans of territorial aggrandizement. He did not mean to speak lightly of the propriety of preserving a balance of European power; but he contended that it was to be preserved only by an adherence to the principles of right and justice, and that it was to be secured, not by territorial arrangements, but by a system which would ensure to the weak, protection against the aggressions of the powerful. Even in a territorial view, however, what assurance had ministers, that Austria would fulfil her engagements? If she succeeded, as he feared would be the case, would she not make the very hostility of the people a pretext for continuing her occupation? He believed that no persons who had experience of the conduct of Austria

would place much reliance on assurances of refraining from territorial aggrandizement, given by that power. Could any person in Europe believe that Austria was willing to relinquish her schemes of ambition with respect to Italy? Ministers had stated, that the general principle was against interference, but that there might arise exceptions. He would then ask what was the exception, and on what ground was it justified? The exception was, "when the immediate security, or essential interests, of one state, are seriously endangered by the internal transactions of another." On what ground was the interference justified? On that of necessity. Whence does that necessity arise? Out of a real, serious, and pressing danger, which leaves no choice, admits of no doubt, and can only be averted by an immediate appeal to force. This danger must not be either uncertain in its existence, or remote in its approach, but such a clear, intelligible, obvious danger, as cannot be denied, and admits of no other remedy than a departure from the general principles of international law. Such a state of things occurs when the government of one nation holds out encouragement to the subjects of another, to resist its authority, or offers assistance to rebellious projects. In illustration of this, he might allude to the decree of the French National Assembly of the 19th November, 1792, which, in his opinion, would have been a legitimate cause of war against the then government of France, had an explanation of the obnoxious measure been demanded and refused. But such a monstrous principle as that on which the Allied Powers professed to act with respect to Naples, had never been heard of in the history of the world. That a nation offering no encouragement to rebellion in other na

tions, and announcing no projects of foreign aggression, but merely making improvements or operating changes in its owninternal government, should present a fit subject of complaint, remonstrance, or interference, on the part of its neighbours, was such a monstrous principle as had never been maintained by any writer on public law, and never before avowed or acted upon by the most profligate ambition. The Allied Sovereigns, acquainted with the conduct and circumstances of the Neapolitan revolution, had interfered on the general principle of a right to interfere, and had thus the merit of acting openly and without disguise, not aggravating the violence of injustice by the meanness of fraud. They endeavoured to justify their conduct, by alleging the revolution as the work of a sect, called the Carbonari. This charge would apply to every great political change. Let their lordships look to the Revolution of 1688, and then he would ask them if it could have been carried into effect without the combinations of those great men, who restored and secured our religion, our laws, and our liberties, and without such mutual communications among them as would bring them under the description of a sect or party? These Carbonari, however, had been cherished and encouraged by the allies, and by the King of Naples, so long as their efforts had been directed against the usurpation of France. Now, when they sought the internal improvement of the state, they were proclaimed rebels. But it was said, that the Neapolitan revolution had not only been the work of a sect, but that they had employed the army as the instrument in effecting their purpose. He did not see any more strength in this objection than in the former. If they were to have

armies, they must reconcile themselves to the idea, that when a soldier enlisted into them he did not surrender the feelings of a man, that he remained a citizen when under arms, and must sympathize with his countrymen. In a revolution, the army must always take one side or the other; it must support the sovereign against the people, or aid the people in demanding their rights of the sovereign. God forbid that it should always, and in all circumstances, take the side of arbitrary power! God forbid that tyranny, however monstrous or oppressive, should always be defended by the army! He rejoiced to consider that soldiers when enlisted did not cease to be men, and that sovereigns were sometimes taught by their taking an opposite side, that their best guards and protection were the confidence and love of the people. God forbid that in all circumstances they should support arbitrary power against the just claims of liberty! It was also alleged, that the King of Naples, in 1815, had made a convention with Austria, not to introduce into the constitution any changes which were not founded on the high monarchical principle. He did not conceive that this treaty could be intended as a permanent guarantee; at all events, it was an immoral and unjust convention, inconsistent with the rights of nations, and beyond the power of being fulfilled. It made the Sovereign of Naples a party against his own subjects, and bound him not to consult their advantage, to which he was bound by the solemn duties of his office. When he looked around, and saw that no changes were to be permitted but those which were inconsistent with the independence of states and the rights of mankind; when he saw Austria, because she had dominions in Italy, decla

ring that no part of Italy should enjoy freedom, lest that freedom should become contagious, he could scarcely restrain his indignation. Of what nature was the government of Austria in Italy? It was the government of strangers in that country; it was founded on recent conquest, and had for its principle that every thing was to be done there for the benefit of Austria, and not for that of Italy. If any new law was to be enacted, it was to secure the interests of Austria; if any tax was to be levied, it was for Austria; if any conscription was to be raised, it was for defending the rights of Austria, and not of Italy. Agriculture, manufactures, and commerce, languished on account of the power exercised by Austria; even literature and the arts had felt the influence of foreign dominion. No improvement could be expected in a state so governed; and was Naples to be restrained from attaining her rights, or establishing her freedom, because the dominion of the Emperor of Austria might be rendered less secure in the north of Italy by an improvement in the south?

The Earl of Liverpool had great satisfaction in the opportunity of entering into a full explanation of his views on this important subject. The circular of the 19th of January, he would contend, contained a clear, distinct, and intelligible exposition, of the views and sense of government on the matter to which it referred, and the principles on which the allies professed to act. With regard to the period of issuing the circular, the document to which it alluded, had certainly been known to exist in the month of September, but then only as a project. At the time of its first official communication, an intention had been entertained and announced of answering it; this was rendered more necessary by the official publi

cation of the document. Ministers, however, had frequently repeated last year the doctrines contained in the circular. A noble baron (Lord Holland) had asked him a question respecting a document published at St Petersburgh, in which mention was made of the Spanish revolution. On that occasion he (Lord Liverpool) not only disclaimed the doctrines contained in that paper, but he distinctly stated to the House that the government of this country had clearly explained itself on the subject, and he further stated that the production and publication of the papers alluded to,would tend rather to prejudice than to benefit a cause which the noble baron wished to assist. The paper published by this government did not contain any new doctrine, but merely set forth the doctrines which Great Britain had held from the beginning ; and, with respect to Naples, referred to those great general principles which had been repeatedly promulgated. In the first place, circumstances had assumed an entirely new shape; for some of the continental powers wished the right of one interfering in the internal concerns of another to be generally acknowledged; and the paper published by those powers actually went to propose a prospective league, with a view of deciding what were the cases in which different countries might interfere in the internal concerns of other states. They did not look to the modification of the general principle, more or less, but they endeavoured to give practical effect to those principles, looking to the necessity of any given communication. There was no mystery, difficulty, or doubt, about the conduct of the English government. No arrangement had been made with any foreign power, except those which were regularly laid before Parliament. As to the principle expressed

« PreviousContinue »